Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about costs the complainant incurred when challenging two Penalty Charge Notices. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says he incurred costs in relation to two Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) the Council issued in error. Mr X wants the Council to pay compensation and resolve the problem.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes a copy of the PCN, Mr X’s challenge and the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X’s vehicle registration contains a ‘V’. The Council issued two PCNs in February for moving traffic offences. It sent Mr X a photograph of the offence. There is a suggestion from the photograph that the car that committed the offence has a registration that included a ‘Y’ rather than a ‘V’.
5. A few days after getting the PCNs Mr X challenged them on-line. He provided evidence of the correct registration for his vehicle and said it had not been in London when the offences occurred. He said the Council had photographed a cloned vehicle and he had already reported the matter to the police. Mr X said he was concerned that another vehicle was driving on his plates and committing offences.
6. The Council accepted his challenge and cancelled both PCNs. It said it had reviewed the CCTV evidence and the registration of the car that committed the offences does not match his vehicle.
7. Mr X asked for compensation. He said he had incurred costs reporting the issue to the police. The Council declined his request. It said he was not required to visit the police and he made successful on-line challenges against both PCNs.
8. In his complaint to us Mr X said he had to spend about four hours travelling to a police station (he lives in a rural area) to report that a car was using his plates; he then had to return to the station to report this was not happening. Mr X wants compensation for his time and petrol. Mr X also said he had received a third PCN; Mr X later said the third PCN was issued by a different council and had been cancelled.
9. There is a statutory process to challenge a PCN. Initially people challenge PCNs with the Council; if that is unsuccessful they appeal to the tribunal. We expect people to use the statutory process and it is rare for the tribunal to award costs or compensation.
10. The Council issued the PCNs in error; it appears the CCTV mis-read the ‘Y’ for a ‘V’. But, despite this error, I do not regard this as administrative fault. This is because the correct process to challenge a PCN was followed which resulted in the Council cancelling both PCNs.
11. I appreciate Mr X visited the police and incurred some costs. But, in his challenge to the Council he refers to the plates being cloned and says he has already contacted the police. Although it is unclear from the PCN photograph that the issue was cloned plates, it was Mr X’s choice to involve the police. I am not suggesting he did anything wrong but he was not required to involve the police or incur costs; the decision to do so was not caused by the Council’s actions but his assessment that a crime might have been committed. As the Council followed the correct process, and cancelled both PCNs following Mr X’s representation, there is no suggestion of fault and no reason to start an investigation or ask for compensation. In addition, the Council has not issued any more PCNs and, if Mr X does receive any more, he can follow the statutory process.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman