Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the increased cost of a penalty charge notice as there is insufficient evidence that Mr X’s claimed injustice arises solely from Council fault or of sufficient injustice to justify our involvement plus we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained he was unable to a pay a penalty charge notice (PCN) via the Council’s website as the amount it had told him to pay in a letter did not match the amount shown online as being due. Mr X also complained the Council took several months to provide its second stage response to his complaint. Mr X wants the PCN to be cancelled.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice to justify investigating, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (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 the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained that when he tried to pay £130 to clear a PCN the Council’s system wrongly showed that £195 was due. Mr X did not pay and the Council continued to enforce the PCN. Mr X says this is wrong and wants the Council to cancel the PCN.
6. The Council’s complaint responses to Mr X indicated that on 26 April 2023, the full charge of the PCN of £130 became payable within 28 days. The Council said it did not take further action, despite non-payment, as correspondence was ongoing between it and Mr X in the months that followed. The Council said that by the time Mr X said he tried to pay in late October, the charge had increased to £195. Mr X disputes this as he says the Council wrote to him on 25 October 2023 saying the charge was £130.
7. I do not consider Mr X’s claimed injustice arises solely from the alleged Council fault as Mr X had several months in which to pay the £130 and could have done so.
8. Mr X claims the Council was at fault to demand payment from him of £195 though I have not seen evidence that might support this. We will not investigate this further however as the injustice that arises from this alleged fault, that is, an additional charge of £65 does not represent a level of injustice to justify our further involvement. We have limited resources and must direct them to the most serious of cases. That Mr X had a prolonged opportunity to pay £130 is also a consideration in reaching this view.
9. We are not another level of appeal, and we cannot recommend that the Council cancels the PCN. We cannot therefore achieve the outcome Mr X would like.
10. For these reasons, we will not investigate.
11. The Council acknowledged its delay in providing Mr X with its second stage response and apologised to him for this. There are not compelling grounds for us to investigate the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint as a stand-alone matter and we will not therefore do so.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence that Mr X’s claimed injustice arises solely from Council fault or of sufficient injustice to justify our involvement plus we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman