Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for a moving traffic contravention. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the Council for a moving traffic contravention. Mr B says the Council failed to consider the compassionate and extenuating reasons for cancelling this PCN, which he cannot afford to pay. Mr B would like the Council to cancel this PCN, or reduce it to the original amount and arrange a payment plan.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 Mr B and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We would not normally investigate a complaint about a PCN where a motorist has a right of appeal to London Tribunals. Mr B appealed to London Tribunals and the Tribunal decided a contravention occurred.
6. But, for this type of PCN (a moving traffic contravention in Greater London) the Tribunal cannot consider mitigating circumstances. So, we can consider whether a local authority was at fault for failing to consider whether there were mitigating circumstances which would justify cancelling a PCN.
7. The Council considered Mr B’s mitigating circumstances when it responded to his representations.
8. The Council decided Mr B’s mitigating circumstances did not justify cancelling this PCN. This was a decision for the Council to make and it is not our role to say the Council should have used its discretion differently.
9. Mr B had the opportunity to pay this PCN at the reduced rate both before and after the Council considered his representations. We would not criticise the Council for not reducing the amount due or not agreeing to a payment plan.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman