Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about three Penalty Charge Notices because there is not enough evidence of fault in the issuing of two of the penalties, and for the final penalty, we are satisfied with the actions already taken by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council wrongly progressed the enforcement action of three Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) without responding to her earlier representations against the PCNs.
2. Miss Y says because of the increasing amounts, she felt she had to pay the PCNs as the amount on the penalties was increasing, putting a strain on her family’s finances and causing her worry and upset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided Miss Y and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss Y has now paid the PCNs in full. She says she did this to stop the amounts increasing, despite having made representations to the Council, which she had not received a response to before the increase in the penalties.
7. Under the statutory process for PCNs, Miss Y is responsible, as the driver and recipient of the PCNs, to challenge the validity of the PCNs with the Tribunal if she felt that the PCN should not have been issued, for example because the signage was inadequate.
8. Despite her reasons for making payment, as Miss Y has now paid the penalties, instead of using her right to appeal them to the London Tribunals, she has legally accepted her liability for the penalties and the validity of the PCNs. As she has legally accepted their validity, even where there may have been issues with the process because these could have been raised as part of an appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre, it is unlikely we would now find fault in the Council’s enforcement of the PCNs. Consequently, we will not investigate.
9. The Council, as part of its own complaint handling, did find an error within its process which led to one of the three PCNs being wrongly progressed to a Charge Certificate. In response, the Council has refunded £195 to Miss Y, which is the entirety of the amount for one of the three penalties she had previously paid. Where an error was found, the Council has carried out the refund, despite the potential that even if there had been no error, it would have upheld the PCN. Therefore, this is likely to be a remedy which is either equal to or more than we would have recommended to remedy any injustice Miss Y had suffered. We are therefore satisfied by the actions the Council has already taken and we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the issuing of two of the penalties, and for the final penalty, we are satisfied with the actions already taken by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman