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 has progressed a Penalty Charge Notice to enforcement which has been wrongly issued to him. Mr Y says he has provided evidence to show that a hire agreement in his name has been obtained fraudulently but says the Council has refused to accept this.
2. Mr Y says the issue has caused him upset and frustration and is concerned about bailiffs because he lives with vulnerable adults.

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))
4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y made representations against the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) the Council issued as he says he did not hire the vehicle involved in the contravention and has no knowledge of the car and has never been either an owner or keeper of it.
7. The Council considered these representations but said it had not accepted them because it had been provided with a copy of the vehicle hire agreement, which it believes was signed by Mr Y from the hire company. Mr Y says he had however provided a letter from the DVLA and from Action Fraud to support his representations, that he had not hired the vehicle and another person had done so using his name.
8. 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.
9. While Mr Y may strongly disagree that the signature is his, the Council has considered his circumstances and has decided not to use its discretion based on the evidence available to it. While other Councils may have accepted Mr Y’s representations, that does not set a precedent that this Council must follow. It is for the Council to consider its discretion and the evidence before forming a view. As the Council has done this and has been able to explain its rationale to Mr Y, there is not enough evidence in the decision-making process to justify investigating. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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