Summary: We will not investigate most of Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to issue him with a Fixed Penalty Notice relating to his vehicle or its decision to impound his vehicle. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. For the remainder, there is insufficient injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
1. issued him with a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) relating to his vehicle;
2. failed to pause his FPN at £150 during its complaints/ appeals process;
3. impounded his vehicle and charged him £280 to release it; and
4. failed to consider his evidence.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him frustration, distress, 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

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

The Fixed Penalty Notice

6. Mr X paid the FPN. This means he accepted liability for the charge issued. There is insufficient evidence of fault in this process to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Pausing the FPN at £150

7. Mr X said the Council failed to hold the amount charged for his FPN at £150 during the appeal process and later charged him £200.
8. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.
9. The difference between the original charge and the final charge was £50. Therefore, the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Impounding of vehicle and related charges

10. The Council found Mr X’s vehicle on the road without licence plates. In line with its policy, it impounded the vehicle. It later charged Mr X £280 to release the vehicle.
11. The Council acted in line with its policy and legislation. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Failure to consider representations

12. Mr X said the Council failed to consider his mitigating circumstances.
13. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s reasons. However, it explained these were not sufficient reasons to refund the FPN or associated charges.
14. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
15. The Council explained how it considered Mr X’s evidence. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate most of Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient fault. For the remainder, there is insufficient injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman