Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices because we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council have pursued his company for the penalties, including using bailiffs, for Penalty Charge Notices, incurred by a vehicle his company no longer owns and did not own at the time of the contraventions, despite his evidence of this. He is also unhappy with the handling of his complaint.
2. Mr Y says the issue has taken up considerable time for him as a small business owner and his mental health has suffered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. 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

6. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Councils are required to send the correspondence for PCNs to the registered keeper of a vehicle. The details for the registered keeper are provided to councils by the DVLA. While Mr Y and his company are no longer the registered keeper of the vehicle and the vehicle has been sold again since Mr Y’s company was the vehicle owner, the Council’s correspondence was sent to the address belonging to Mr Y.
8. From the information Mr Y has provided to us, the vehicle is now no longer registered to him or his company with the DVLA, although it would appear this took a little time to be updated on the DVLA records after the company sold the vehicle. During this time the PCNs were issued to Mr Y’s company as the details available at the time, as the Council is required to do.
9. After Mr Y complained to us, the Council considered the PCNs he had complained about. It has since written to Mr Y and has withdrawn both PCNs and apologised for the time it took the Council to resolve with the matter.
10. As the Council has now withdrawn the PCNs and has apologised for the issue it is unlikely the Ombudsman would be able to add to the original investigation and the Council’s remedy is appropriate outcome for the issue. Consequently, it is unlikely further consideration of this complaint would lead to a different outcome. We will not investigate.
11. As we are not investigating the substantive issue about the pursuit of the penalties by the Council, it is not a good use of public funds to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint and we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman