Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the escalation of a parking penalty charge notice as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council causing an injustice to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains she had to pay an extra £80 to clear a parking penalty charge notice (PCN) when the Council issued her with a charge certificate. Mrs X complains the Council was wrong to do this when she was waiting to hear the decision on a review of her appeal by London Tribunals. Mrs X complains about the extra cost and time spent pursuing the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 alleged fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X appealed to London Tribunals (LT) against the PCN, but her appeal was rejected. Mrs X sought a review of this decision by LT. LT reviewed the case and upheld the appeal decision. It wrote to Mrs X to inform her of this, but Mrs X says she did not receive the letter. Mrs X says she was later notified of the outcome and that she believed she had 28 days from this notification to pay the £160 PCN. The Council however issued Mrs X with a charge certificate during this period, which increased the fine to £240. Mrs X complains the Council refused to allow her to pay £160 when her representative contacted the Council following this. Mrs X also complains the Council would not escalate her complaint.
7. In its complaint response to Mrs X, the Council indicated it had acted correctly in law, issuing a charge certificate when the PCN remained unpaid following the outcome of LT’s review of its appeal decision. It told Mrs X it would not refund her the extra £80 she paid; Mrs X had by this time paid the £240 demanded by the charge certificate, under protest.
8. We will not investigate as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council. The Council followed the enforcement process in law in issuing the charge certificate, following LT’s decision on the appeal review. That the Council refused to set the fine back to £160 was a decision it was entitled to make and one we cannot criticise unless there is fault in how it was made. While I recognise Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s decision, her complaint does not provide evidence of such fault. Our further involvement is therefore not warranted.
9. I do not consider Mrs X is caused significant injustice from any alleged fault in respect of the Council’s complaint handling and as such, there are not grounds for us to investigate this in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or fault causing a significant injustice to her.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman