Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr y complained the Council failed to respond to his representations against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on a vehicle he had hired from his employer in good time, causing the penalty to increase, without Mr Y being able to appeal. Mr Y says his employer then paid the penalty, amounting to £240, which Mr Y will need to pay his employer for, causing potential reputational damage.

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 or continue 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, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. When a PCN is issued by a Council it must be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, which in this case is Mr Y’s employer. Mr Y’s employer received the PCN and told Mr Y about it, leaving him to make representations about the PCN to the Council. The employer had the option to transfer the PCN to Mr Y by contacting the Council and making representations to say that it had a hire agreement with Mr Y and he was the driver of the vehicle under a hire agreement at the time of the contravention. However, this did not occur.
5. The Council is only able to respond to representations against PCNs with the registered keeper of the vehicle, or where a vehicle is hired when liability for the PCN has been formally transferred from a hire company to the hirer. However, as Mr Y is not the registered keeper of the vehicle with the DVLA and liability had not been transferred, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s lack of response to the representations from Mr Y to justify investigation.
6. Further, we could not say its actions caused Mr Y significant injustice. This is because Mr Y is not directly liable for the PCN and has only taken on responsibility for payment under his contract with his employer as a hire company. It is also the employer, rather than the Council, which has asked for payment for the PCN from Mr Y. We could not therefore directly assign the cost Mr Y has been asked to pay, or the increased level of that cost, to any potential fault by the Council. Therefore, as any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained and is not significant enough to justify our involvement, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman