Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Authority wrongly issued her with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and then refused to use its discretion and chose to enforce the penalty. She also complained the Authority responded to her complaint and representations by email, despite having asked her to send information to them by post.
2. Miss Y says this led to her paying the PCN, costing her £90, as well as additional postage costs and her time and energy being used in the process, which she feels was unfair.

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.

4. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Miss Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss Y complained the Authority wrongly issued a PCN to her after an error on a banking app meant that while she had made payment for entering a chargeable vehicle zone, this was blocked. Miss Y says she received no message to say the payment had failed, so was unaware of the issue until she received the PCN. Miss Y also complained the Authority then refused to use its discretion and chose to enforce the penalty, which she feels was unfair in the circumstances as she had tried to pay the charge.
8. We cannot question whether a organisations decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. In this case, the Authority has considered its discretion and the circumstances of why Miss Y’s payment was not made. As it has considered the individual issues and the question of whether to use its discretion or not, even though Miss Y may disagree with the outcome, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify investigation.
9. Further, if Miss Y felt the PCN was invalid for any reason, it is for her as the driver and recipient of the PCN to challenge this using the statutory process. In deciding not to appeal and paying the penalty, Miss Y has legally accepted her liability for the penalty. As she has accepted liability, even under protest, it is unlikely we would now find fault in the Authority’s issuing of the PCN. We will not investigate.
10. She also complained that the Authority responded to her complaint and representations by email, despite having asked her to send information to them by post. Miss Y says this cost her money to send and she had to buy stationary to do so.
11. 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 a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
12. While Miss Y may have felt it unfair that she needed to send information in the post, the cost of this is not a serious of significant harm or loss. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman