Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, says she paid a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) at the discounted rate of £60 but ended up paying £180. She says the Council failed to respond to her enquiries and would not let her pay in instalments. Ms X wants a £120 refund.

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 Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and copies of emails sent by Ms X. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Ms X received a PCN for entering the clean air zone. The fine was £120. The fine was reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. Ms X says she immediately paid £60 and received a message saying the payment was successful. Ms X says she had a receipt but no longer has it.
5. Ms X says she then received a letter saying the fine had increased to £120. Ms X says she contacted the Council to explain she had paid £60 but says she did not get a reply.
6. The Council says it did not receive £60 from Ms X and did not hear from her until after it had issued the charge certificate. A charge certificate is issued if someone has neither paid nor appealed a PCN. The charge certificate increased the fine to £180.
7. The Council received emails from Ms X explaining she had paid £60 and had not received a response to previous emails. The Council said it was now too late to challenge the PCN. It said there was no record of Ms X paying £60 and no record of previous emails. The Council said it had not sent a letter asking for £120 and it said that copies of emails she had sent showed she had sent emails to the wrong address.
8. Ms X borrowed money from family and paid £180. Ms X said the Council ignored her request to pay by instalment. The Council closed the case because Ms X paid the fine. Ms X wants the Council to refund £120 because she says she paid £60 when she received the fine.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I acknowledge Ms X’s assertion that she paid £60 and I have no reason to doubt what she says; however, I have not seen anything to suggest Ms X provided the Council with evidence of payment. In addition, Ms X says she received a letter asking for £120 but the Council would not have sent a demand for £120 because the next stage was the charge certificate and a request for £180. The correct sequence of events was for the Council to issue the PCN for £120 and then a charge certificate for £180.
10. I have seen copies of emails Ms X sent and, on at least two occasions, she used the wrong email address. For example, she sent an email to the social enterprise partnership and she referred to the complaints procedure for that organisation. This may explain why the Council has no record of any contact from Ms X before April and it may not have received a request to pay by instalments. I do not know if the Council would have agreed to allow payment by instalment but, as Ms X paid the fine in full, the case was closed, and Ms X may be able to repay the relative in instalments.
11. I appreciate Ms X is certain she paid £60 in February but there is no supporting evidence and the overall body of evidence does not suggest there was fault by the Council.

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