Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to properly consider that Mr X made an error when paying a congestion charge fine. This is because the law prevents us from investigating the penalty charge notices after his appeal to the Tribunal, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Councils consideration of mitigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to properly consider that he made an error when paying a congestion charge fine. He said because of this he received a further fine which has caused him significant distress. Mr X wants the Council to compensate him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. If the person has already appealed we have no power to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued Mr X with a PCN for non-payment of the congestion charge. Mr X made representations and then appealed to the Tribunal. He said he paid the charge late because of his neurodiverse condition. The Tribunal refused the appeal. It said it could not consider mitigating circumstances, as that was a matter for the Council.
8. As Mr X appealed to the Tribunal, we cannot investigate the PCN itself. We can only consider whether there was fault in the Council’s consideration of any mitigating circumstances.
9. The Council considered Mr X’s circumstances and recognised the genuine efforts he had made to resolve the matter. It cancelled the PCN but did not agree to pay compensation. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it considered Mr X’s circumstances. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome because the PCN has been cancelled.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the law prevents us from investigating the PCN after his appeal to the Tribunal, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of mitigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman