Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about Penalty Charge Notices she received for alleged moving traffic contraventions. This is because any fault by the Council has not caused Miss B a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains about several Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) she received from the Council for alleged moving traffic contraventions. Miss B says the PCNs were addressed to the wrong name. Miss B would like the Council to cancel the PCNs issued in the wrong name.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
5. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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

6. I considered information provided by Miss B.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss B put in appeals against these PCNs to London Tribunals. The Tribunal decided the alleged moving traffic contraventions occurred and dismissed Miss B’s appeals.
9. Miss B says the PCNs were addressed to the wrong name and this is procedural impropriety. This was not a matter the Tribunal could decide because procedural impropriety is not a ground of appeal for this type of PCN.
10. But, an investigation by the Ombudsman is not justified. Miss B has provided some letters from the Council which used the wrong first letter for her surname. But, these letters used Miss B’s correct address and she received them. So, any mistakes with the spelling of Miss B’s surname have not prevented Miss B receiving relevant correspondence or putting in representations and appeals against these PCNs.
11. So, the alleged fault has not caused Miss B a significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because the alleged fault has not caused Miss B a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman