Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint that the Authority has not paid him compensation for his distress dealing with two Penalty Charge Notices which were wrongly issued. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr C complains the Authority has refused his request for compensation for his distress and inconvenience putting in representations against two Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). Mr C says the Authority later accepted these PCNs were wrongly issued. Mr C says he and his wife spent a whole day collecting information to support these representations and they found the experience very distressing. Mr C would like the Authority to pay him £500.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr C.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We generally expect a motorist who wishes to challenge a PCN to use the statutory representations and appeal procedure. This involves the motorist putting in representations to the authority which issued the PCN. And, if needed, by putting in an appeal to London Tribunals (for authorities in London).
6. Inevitably, a person may be caused some distress by receiving a PCN and will be put to some time and trouble challenging it. But, we have to make sure public money is spent carefully.
7. We generally would not criticise an authority for not agreeing to pay a motorist compensation solely for their inconvenience and distress challenging a PCN through this statutory process.
8. In the same way, we would not ask a local authority to make a time and trouble payment just because a person had to use an authority’s complaints procedure, or complain to us.
9. In response to Mr C’s representations, the Authority cancelled both PCNs. The Authority has also apologised to Mr C and explained it generally does not pay compensation for a person’s administrative costs. This is so funds can be invested into the transport network. In the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the Authority to refuse Mr C’s request.
10. So, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation or the pursuit of a financial remedy by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman