Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not investigate a complaint about its handling of the complainant’s representations against a penalty charge notice as of itself, this does not cause the complainant a level of injustice that would justify our further involvement. It is also unlikely we could investigate without straying into areas that are not within our remit, given the complainant’s right to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused to investigate his complaint about its handling of his representations against a penalty charge notice (PCN) it issued to him. Mr X considers the Council failed to follow its own procedures and the legal process in respect of this. Mr X says he has been put to some time and trouble in trying to hold the Council to account.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I recognise Mr X has strong feelings about how his case was handled and has spent some time in pursuing this matter. However, from our perspective, this does not represent a level of loss or harm to him that would justify our further involvement. We have limited resources and must direct them to the most serious cases.
7. The substantive injustice to Mr X is the PCN, and the law provides an appeal procedure that Mr X can follow to challenge it. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to follow this appeal process and therefore, as per paragraph three, this substantive matter is not within our remit. It is unlikely we could separate out the Council’s handling of Mr X's representations against the PCN from this substantive matter.
8. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the issue he complains about does not of itself cause him an injustice to justify our further involvement. It is also too closely related to the substantive matter which is not within our remit.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman