Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of Enforcement Agents. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and investigation would not add to the investigation already carried out by the Authority.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Authority did not respond to her complaint and the enforcement agency they used charged unreasonable fees.
2. Ms X said it caused distress.
3. Ms X wants the Authority to investigate the extra costs added to her original fine.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Authority may issue Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) for drivers who have parked improperly or not made payment for congestion charges.
8. Ms X received several PCN’s. The Authority instructed Enforcement Agents (EA) to collect payment on its behalf.
9. Ms X had a payment plan in place with the EA, it was not followed. Further charges were applied when the agreement was not upheld.
10. Ms X complained to the EA about their conduct and the additional charges. Ms X was not satisfied with the EA’s response so complained to the Authority.
11. The Authority directed Ms X back to the EA. We asked the Authority to investigate Ms X’s complaint and it did so.
12. The Authority told Ms X the enforcement fee was correctly applied due to the payment plan closing. Ms X paid a lower amount than the payment plan dictated and did not respond to communication from the EA before it closed the payment plan.
13. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
14. Within the Authority’s investigation they acknowledged a refund was due to Ms X and both the EA and the Authority made gestures of goodwill that benefited Ms X. For this reason, we could not add to the investigation the Authority has already carried out.
15. I have considered the impact of any delay in complaint handling by the Authority. It is not a good use of public money to investigate complaints about complaint procedures where we decide to not investigate the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation and we could not add to the investigation completed by the Authority.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman