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

The complaint

1. Ms Y complained the Council failed to ensure that she received PCN correspondence promptly. She is also unhappy with how the Council responded to her complaint.
2. Ms Y says this meant she was unaware of the contravention and therefore repeated it, resulting in a further PCN.

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. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils do not need to use registered or recorded post when sending PCN correspondence. 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. Consequently, where a driver does not receive or receives correspondence in an incorrect order, this would not be sufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation.
7. Further, Ms Y is effectively disputing the validity of the second PCN the Council has issued on the basis of not being told about the first contravention and therefore not altering her driving. She has now paid the penalty, despite her disagreement with it, instead of using his right to appeal it to the London Tribunals. If Ms Y has felt that the PCN was unjustified or incorrect, it is for her as the driver and recipient of the PCN to challenge this.
8. In deciding not to appeal and paying the penalty, Ms Y has legally accepted her liability for the penalty and the validity of the PCN itself. As she has accepted its validity, it is unlikely we would now find fault in the Council’s issuing or enforcement of the PCN. We will not investigate.
9. As we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with or responded to Ms Y’s complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms 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