Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled a Penalty Charge Notice appeal. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Miss X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council wrongly issued her a penalty charge notice (PCN) and then failed to handle her informal challenge and complaints appropriately. Miss X says the Council’s actions caused her distress and she wants the Council to reimburse the penalty charge.
2. Miss X also complains about inconsistencies in the Council's complaint handling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. There is a statutory process for how Council’s must respond to PCN disputes. If the Council rejects a motorist’s informal challenge, it must send a notice of rejection. If the motorist then does not pay, it may send a notice to owner to the owner/registered keeper.
7. The Council issued Miss X a PCN for a parking contravention. She is not the owner of the vehicle but rents it from a company. Miss X disputed the PCN and made an informal challenge against it to the Council. The Council considered Miss X’s challenge and sent her a notice of rejection.
8. Miss X says the Council sent the notice by post, even though she had requested email communications only due to her accessibility needs. This meant she did not see the notice of rejection until after she got asked the Council for an update.
9. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.
10. As Miss X was not the car’s registered keeper, she was not liable for the PCN. Miss X had no standing to challenge or appeal the PCN, regardless of when or how she received the notice of rejection. I do not consider there has been significant enough personal injustice from how the Council sent the notice of rejection to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigation.
11. Following the notice of rejection Miss X says the Council stopped engaging with her about the PCN. The Council says this is because Miss X is not the registered keeper of the car. It therefore sent all further correspondence to the registered keeper - the rental company - rather than Miss X.
12. The Council has a duty to send notices to the party liable for the PCN, in this case the rental company. Miss X was not a liable party and would have no standing to challenge the PCN. The Council did not have a duty to update Miss X, so we are unlikely to find fault with the Council for not doing so.
13. Miss X is also not liable for the PCN, and we could not therefore say the PCN itself directly caused her any significant injustice. The injustice she claims stems from the actions of the rental company, which paid the PCN and has sought to recover payment from Miss X. This is a matter between Miss X and the rental company.
14. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to investigate the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence the Council’s actions directly caused her significant injustice. It is therefore unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Miss X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman