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

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council wrongly enforced a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and wrongly refused representations against the PCN. Mr Y also complained that the Council initially rejected his correspondence as he was not the registered keeper, but later engaged with him during the complaints process. He is also unhappy with the Council’s refusal to reassess his complaint about poor signage for the area he received the PCN in at stage two of its complaints procedure.
2. Mr Y says this caused upset, frustration and uncertainty.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y is unhappy the Council wrongly enforced a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and wrongly refused his representations against the PCN but later engaged with him during the complaints process. The PCN was issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, as is required by law. Mr y is not the registered keeper of the vehicle. While he may have been the driver of the vehicle at the time the contravention took place, the Council was required to issue and only accept representations from the register keeper. As this was not Mr Y, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify investigating.
7. When Mr Y made a complaint, this was in his own capacity and not that of the registered keeper. The Council responded and this was correct. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.
8. Mr Y complained about poor signage in the area where the contravention occurred and the Council’s decision not to deal with this complaint further. The alleged poor signage in the area would be an issue which the registered keeper could potentially raise as a reason why the PCN would be invalid or should not be enforced and it is for them to raise this as part of any representations or appeal against the PCN.
9. Where we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public resources to consider how the Council responded to or dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. We will not investigate this.
10. Further, as Mr Y is not the recipient of the PCN and his complaint relates to the making of representations or signage in connection with the PCN, his injustice is limited.
11. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
12. As Mr Y has not experienced a serious loss, harm or distress, any injustice he has suffered is not significant enough to justify our investigation. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman