Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council failed to ensure he had received a copy of the Notice of Rejection (NOR) of his representations against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
2. Mr Y says this meant he was unaware his representations had been rejected and was unable to appeal to the Tribunal. Mr Y says he felt he had to pay the penalty, of £195, due to the letters he received from the Council which he found threatening. He is seeking a refund of £130 to reduce the penalty to the original amount.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mr Y and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y disputed receiving the Notice of Rejection the Council sent to him and says this prevented him from appealing a PCN.
6. Councils do not need to use registered or recorded post when sending a Notice of Rejection. Unless the contrary is proved, a document is deemed to have been served by post when it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978.
7. I have seen no evidence to demonstrate the Council did not send the Notice of Rejection, only evidence that this was not received. While I acknowledge Mr Y’s comments that he did not receive the Notice of Rejection, without evidence to show otherwise, we would consider the Council to have served the documents by post correctly. As a result, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.
8. Further, to avoid an increase in the cost of the penalty, potential contact from debt collectors and any order being made against him relating to the penalty, Mr Y paid the penalty. This cost £195.
9. Mr Y did this instead of providing an out of time statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre, which is based at Northampton County Court. The TEC was set up for the purpose of dealing with such issues and is free to use. When he paid the penalty, Mr Y right to approach both the TEC and the London Tribunals to appeal the PCN ended.
10. Mr Y also, despite his disagreement with the amount, accepted the penalty, including the increased cost and his liability for the payment of the amount. As he has accepted the liability for the payment, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman