Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to take the process back to an earlier stage. Any injustice Mr X has suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council ignored his complaint to review the outcome of its decision to issue a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Following his complaint, Mr X says the Council agreed to reduce the PCN to £80, but when he went to pay online it had not been reduced. Mr X says the Council failed to respond to his representations against the PCN and he therefore could not appeal to a tribunal. He says the threat of being taken to court is affecting his mental health. Mr X wants the Council to review its policy and processes, cancel the PCN and any impending court action. He also wants the Council to pay him compensation for the stress it has caused him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court or use a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(6)(a) and (c), as amended)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for the rest of England. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), part of the county court, considers applications to set the PCN process back where there has been procedural fault.
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 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X sent representations to the Council disputing its reasons for issuing the PCN to him and wanted it to be cancelled. Mr X says because the Council failed to respond to his formal representations, he could not appeal to a tribunal.
9. The Council said it considered the concerns Mr X raised about the PCN being issued. It rejected his representations and issued a Notice of Rejection to Mr X.
10. Mr X said he never received this notice. The Council explained to Mr X its records showed the notice had been sent and as he had not responded, a Charge Certificate had already been issued. Therefore, he had no further right of appeal at that stage.
11. The Council did not issue Mr X with an Order for Recovery. Had it done so, I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have filed a witness statement with the TEC. If the TEC accepted the statement, Mr X’s right to appeal would have been reinstated.
12. The Council told Mr X as a goodwill gesture it would reduce the PCN to £80 if paid within ten days. Mr X said he tried to make an online payment within the given timeframe, however the PCN was not at the reduced rate agreed.
13. Mr X raised this issue with the Council, and it agreed an error had been made and reduced the PCN, which Mr X paid.
14. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide the impact of the fault a person complains about is not so significant that we should investigate. 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 by an organisation.
15. Although, the PCN was not initially reduced as it should have been, the issue was corrected and Mr X could pay the reduced rate. Therefore, I do not consider he has suffered significant injustice.
16. If Mr X still disputed the PCN, he could have chosen not to pay and filed a witness statement once the Order for Recovery was issued.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for him to have applied to the TEC to make a witness statement. Any injustice Mr X has suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman