Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to reoffer a 50% discount to the amount of a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the injustice claimed is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider whether to allow him to pay a penalty charge notice (PCN) at the discounted rate of £80 following his unsuccessful challenge. He says this caused him significant stress, frustration and anxiety over several months and put him to disproportionate time and effort to challenge its handling of the case.

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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for parking contraventions and handling appeals against them. When a council issues a PCN the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal; appeals at this stage are known as ‘informal challenges’. For the first 14 days the motorist may pay at a discounted rate of 50% of the full fine.
6. The Department for Transport (DfT) has issued statutory guidance to local authorities about dealing with PCNs and challenges/appeals. This states:

“If a challenge is received within the discount period and subsequently rejected, the Secretary of State recommends that the enforcement authority should consider re-offering the discount for a further 14 days to incentivise payment.”

7. However Mr X challenged the PCN outside the original 14-day discounted period and the DfT guidance does not therefore apply.
8. The Council considered Mr X’s challenge but found no good reasons to cancel the PCN. It notified Mr X of this, confirmed the full amount of £160 was due and advised him to wait for the ‘notice to owner’ if he wished to dispute the PCN further.
9. Mr X made formal representations in response to the notice to owner which claimed procedural impropriety for not reoffering the discount. He then complained to the Council when it rejected his representations.
10. Mr X says the Council has previously agreed to reoffer the discount when he has challenged PCNs outside the original 14-day discounted period and says that if it intends to apply strict rules to this point it must communicate these clearly and apply the rules consistently.
11. I have reviewed the evidence available and can see the original PCN issued by the Council states:

“If we receive representations within the 14 day reduced payment period, but do not accept the challenge, we will allow a further 14 days from the date the rejection letter is served in which to pay the reduced penalty charge.”

12. The Council’s actions in this case are consistent with the law, the statutory guidance and the information it provides about reoffering the discount and it is therefore unlikely we would find fault.
13. The amount of the injustice Mr X claims is also not significant enough to warrant investigation. Mr X has now paid the PCN at £160 and the difference between this and the discounted rate is therefore only £80. Mr X says he has gone to disproportionate time and trouble to pursue the matter but this was his choice and was not the result of any fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman