Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s handling of Penalty Charge Notices. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating. Additionally, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y wants so there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Authority mismanaged his Autopay account which led to him receiving several Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs).
2. Mr Y also said the Authority did not properly consider the mitigation he made to it about the PCNs.
3. Mr Y said this caused distress, embarrassment and led to him paying enforcement agent fees under duress.
4. Mr Y wants the Council to apologise, review its processes, refund the enforcement agent fees he paid and compensate him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Authority.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr Y received several Congestion Charge-related PCNs. Mr Y states this was because the Authority had mismanaged his Autopay account.
9. Mr Y made representations including mitigation to the Authority. The Authority considered the mitigation Mr Y had provided but decided not to change how it intended to enforce the PCNs. The mitigation Mr Y provided did not meet the statutory grounds for appeal as laid out in paragraph 10 of the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. The Authority must consider anything the motorist says as part of their representations, even if none of the statutory grounds apply. There is evidence that it did so. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Authority considered Mr Y’s mitigation to justify our involvement.
11. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
12. Additionally, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y wants. Mr Y has already paid enforcement fees for some PCNs, and the Authority has wiped the others outstanding. We cannot direct the Authority to refund Mr Y the enforcement fees he has paid, only a court can do this. As we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y wants, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable from our investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating. Additionally, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y seeks so there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman