Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice as there is insufficient remaining injustice caused to the complainant to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained to the Council that she was wrongly sent a charge certificate and order for recovery relating to a penalty charge notice (PCN). Mrs X remains unhappy as she says the Council’s complaint response failed to address several issues she raised in her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s complaint responses as she considers they did not address points she made about its actions being in breach of traffic enforcement regulations, in that it failed to deal with a Parking Adjudicator’s decision within 35 days, and that it made no mention of the case only having been resolved due to Mrs X’s chasing of the matter. Mrs X is also dissatisfied that the Council did not address the issue of the charge certificate having wrongly been registered against her name at the Northampton County Court.
7. In its complaint responses to Mrs X, the Council explained it had issued a charge certificate and order for recovery for the PCN due to an internal error in November 2022 when a recommendation from a London Tribunals’ Parking Adjudicator was overlooked. The enforcement of the PCN therefore continued. The Council confirmed that the PCN had been cancelled and offered Mrs X a £75 payment in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her.
8. While I recognise the Council may not have responded to the points raised by Mrs X in the way she would have liked, I do not consider she is caused sufficient injustice from this, to warrant our further involvement. The PCN was cancelled, and the Council offered a payment in mitigation of its fault, which is broadly in line with what we would have been likely to recommend.
9. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient remaining injustice caused to her to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman