Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and it is not a good use of public funds to investigate how a Council dealt with a complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained that the Authority unfairly pursued her for three Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). She is also unhappy with how she was treated during the Council’s consideration of her complaint which she says was rude.
2. Miss Y says this has caused her upset and financial difficulty.

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. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss Y is unhappy with the Authority’s pursual of her for payment of three PCN’s which it issued for entering the Ultra Low Emission Zone without payment. Although Miss Y made representations these were rejected by the Authority. While the correspondence was sent to Miss Y, this was at a previous address as she had moved shortly after receiving the PCNs.
7. Once the rejection was received, Miss Y decided not to appeal, due to two close bereavements and agreed a payment plan with the Authority. She has now paid the penalties in full, despite her disagreement with it, instead of using her right to appeal to the London Tribunals.
8. If Miss Y that the PCNs ought not to be enforced, it is for her as the driver and recipient of the PCNs to challenge this through the appeals process in the London Tribunals.
9. While her decision may have been to not appeal due to her circumstances at the time, in accepting and arranging a payment plan with the Authority, Miss Y has legally accepted her liability for the penalties. As she has accepted the liability, it is unlikely we would now find fault in the Authority’s enforcement of the PCN. We will not investigate.
10. As we are not investigating the substantive complaint in this matter, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Authority dealt with Miss Y during the complaints process. We will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and it is not a good use of public funds to investigate how a Council dealt with a complaint

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman