Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s process for appealing Penalty Charge Notices. There is insufficient evidence of fault and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s process for dealing with appeals against Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). He says the Council was insensitive during its handling of his appeals against two PCNs, did not respond to his written communication and did not provide sufficient information about other communication methods. He wants the Council to improve its communication and make the process more accessible for the public.

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 to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X appealed against two Penalty Charge Notices for parking offences, but Council rejected the appeals. Mr X then paid the penalty charges, but complained there was poor communication during the appeals process and the Council did not provide sufficient information about changes to parking restrictions and different ways to communicate with the Council about the PCNs.
6. In its response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council acknowledged Mr X had made an overpayment on one of the PCNs and agreed to refund the overpayment to him. It acknowledged its initial response to his appeals could have used more empathetic language, but said it was satisfied the decision to issue the PCNs was correct. It explained it did not respond to his letters about the matter as by the time it received them, Mr X had paid the PCNs, so it considered the matter closed.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has refunded him the overpayment so we could not add to this. Information about how to pay a PCN and the appeals process is included when a notice is issued and is also available on the Council’s website. The website lists several different ways to pay and a telephone number for any queries related to a PCN. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the information provided to warrant an investigation.
8. Mr X has paid the charges which, by law, is deemed as acceptance of liability. If Mr X had wanted to challenge the PCNs, he could have used his right of appeal to the London Tribunals. We could not require the Council to refund the charges.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman