Summary: We will not investigate in isolation this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s representations against a penalty charge notice it issued to him as any injustice from this can be remedied via an appeal to the Tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council made false statements in a letter it sent to him rejecting the representations he made against a penalty charge notice (PCN). Mr X complains about a lack of honesty and transparency as he says the Council has not explained how the errors occurred. Mr X would like an explanation of this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We look at organisational fault, not individual professional competence. Decisions about individual’s fitness to practise or work are for the organisations concerned, and for professional regulators, not the Ombudsman. (Local Government Act 1974, s26(1) and s26A(1) as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The injustice to Mr X is from the PCN and Parliament has provided an appeal mechanism by which Mr X can seek a remedy, ultimately to an independent tribunal, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT). Mr X disagrees with the Council’s response to his representations and so can progress with an appeal. While I recognise the points Mr X makes about transparency, it is reasonable to expect him to do this. We will not investigate the handling of Mr X’s representations in isolation as this does not cause him an injustice serious enough to justify our further involvement, in the public interest.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as the substantive injustice arises from the PCN and Mr X can address this via an appeal. We will not investigate the Council’s handling of his representations in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman