Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices being wrongly issued because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council wrongly issued four Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) to his property in his name on, despite him having complained about the issue after receiving the first two PCNs. He is also unhappy with the Council’s handling of his complaint.
2. Mr Y says the issue caused him inconvenience and is seeking financial compensation for the issue.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• 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))

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 Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y received two PCNs for a vehicle with a similar registration number from the Council. He contacted the Council using the details for representations provided with the PCNs and the Council agreed that the PCNs were not for Mr Y and cancelled them. Mr Y then received two further PCNs, for the same vehicle as he had been contacted about previously. He complained to the Council.
7. The Council cancelled the two further PCNs and apologised. It explained that it did check PCNs before they were issued, but at times, human error meant that vehicles which its machines had misread, were not corrected by its staff. It agreed to remind staff of the need to carefully check PCNs before they were issued. Mr Y was unhappy about this response as he wanted compensation, so he approached us.
8. As the Council has properly considered and investigated the complaint, it is unlikely the Ombudsman would be able to add to the original investigation. The error made was human error and the Council has taken action to try to prevent recurrence by reminding staff of the need to check documents. Further, the Council has offered a proportionate and appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by its fault, by apologising and by cancelling the PCNs. This is also in line with our Guidance on Remedies, so it is unlikely further consideration of this complaint would lead to a different outcome. Consequently, we are satisfied with the remedy the Council has offered, and we will not investigate this complaint.
9. Mr Y has also complained about the handling of his complaint by the Council, who he says failed to respond to him properly. As we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with the complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman