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

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Authority issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for a road charging contravention. Mr B says he was lost at the time and did not deliberately commit a contravention. Mr B says it was an honest mistake and the Authority is wrong not to cancel this PCN.

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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr B’s complaint is that there were mitigating circumstances to explain why this contravention occurred. Mr B says the Authority should cancel this PCN because of these mitigating circumstances.
6. We would normally expect a person to put in an appeal to London Tribunals (for authorities in London) if they wish to challenge a PCN issued for a parking, road charging or moving traffic contravention.
7. But, for road charging PCNs issued by an authority within London, a motorist cannot put in an appeal to London Tribunals on the basis of mitigating circumstances.
8. So, we can consider if an authority was at fault for failing to consider a person’s mitigating circumstances when responding to representations against a PCN. But, it is for an authority to decide whether to use its discretion to cancel a PCN because of mitigating circumstances.
9. The Authority considered Mr B’s mitigating circumstances when it responded to his representations. The Authority decided not to cancel this PCN. This was a decision for the Authority to make and it is not our role to tell the Authority it should have used its discretion differently.
10. So, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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