Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice the Council issued to Mr X and the recovery action it took. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that he could not respond to a penalty charge notice (PCN) within the discounted period as he was out of the country when the letter arrived.
2. Mr X made representations to the Council but the Council did not accept them. It gave Mr X the opportunity to pay the PCN but he did not, so it escalated the case, registered the unpaid PCN with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court and began recovery action.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. 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 provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued Mr X a PCN in September 2024. Mr X said he was out of the country when the letter arrived and missed the opportunity to pay it at the discounted rate. He made a 50% payment towards the PCN but this was outside the 14-day discounted period. As a result, there remained a balance on the PCN which the Council was entitled to recover.
8. The Council escalated the case in accordance with the statutory process but Mr X continued to challenge its actions. The Council considered his comments and the evidence he provided but decided there were no good reasons to accept his partial payment in settlement of the PCN. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision.
9. We are 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.
10. The evidence I have seen shows the Council considered the information Mr X provided and made a decision it was entitled to make. While I appreciate Mr X disagrees with it, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman