Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, and we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken or proposes to take.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council pursued him for a Penalty Charge Notice using enforcement agents, despite him having already paid both for parking and for the penalty.
2. Mr Y says this led to him having to pay enforcement agents costs, increasing the penalty to nearly £400. Mr Y also says this caused him significant upset and financial worry.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), 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 received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) after he paid for parking but entered an incorrect registration number when making payment. Mr Y then paid the Council £100 for the penalty, but did this under its Fixed Penalty Notice system, rather than as a Penalty Charge Notice, which is a different type of notice.
7. Consequently, although the Council had received a payment, it continued its enforcement process for the PCN, as its system had not been able to identify what the payment Mr Y made had been for.
8. As the Council was unaware Mr Y had tried to pay the PCN, it continued its enforcement action, resulting in enforcement agents attending Mr Y’s property. Mr Y paid the enforcement agents a further £395 for the PCN, before complaining to the Council.
9. The Council’s complaint response shows it ensured the refund of the money Mr Y paid the enforcement agents and it had agreed to return the overpayment Mr Y had made for the PCN to the Council directly, of £20. This refund would then result in Mr Y having been refunded all the money, apart from the penalty itself.
10. As the Council has properly considered the complaint and has agreed to provide Mr Y with a refund of the overpayment, it is unlikely the Ombudsman would be able to add to the original investigation. Consequently, it is unlikely further consideration of this complaint would lead to a different outcome, and so no worthwhile outcome is achievable by our investigation. As the Council’s actions have led to a refund to put Mr Y back into the position he would have been in if the PCN had been paid directly to the Council’s PCN department, we are satisfied with the Council’s proposed actions in response to this complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, and we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken or proposes to take.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman