Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with challenges against penalty charge notices. There is no direct link between the Council’s actions and any injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that after he used the same reason to challenge two penalty charge notices (PCNs) for moving traffic contraventions, the Council refused to cancel one PCN but cancelled the other. Mr X says the reason the Council gave for cancelling the second PCN was misleading and if it had been clearer he would have paid the first PCN earlier than he did. Mr X says he has experienced financial loss because the amount he had to pay increased.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 fault has not caused direct injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

2. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
3. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X says he thought the letter he received from the Council cancelling one PCN applied to both. However, the letter clearly only relates to one PCN. Any injustice resulting from Mr X’s mistaken belief that he was no longer liable for either of the PCNs is therefore not linked to the Council’s actions.
5. The Council used a standard template cancellation letter that did not detail the precise reason for cancelling the PCN. We would be unlikely to conclude this amounts to fault. Moreover, even if we thought it was fault, it did not directly cause Mr X to incur extra charges for the other PCN. The Council later wrote to Mr X about the other PCN, from which it was clear the Council had not cancelled that PCN. That communication gave Mr X 14 days to pay the outstanding PCN at the discounted rate otherwise the charge would increase. So, Mr X incurring the increased charge resulted from his not paying when it was clear what his options were. It did not result directly from any shortcoming in the letter cancelling the first PCN.
6. The Council has acknowledged the explanation it gave for cancelling the second PCN could have been clearer. But even if the Council’s explanation had been more specific it would not have changed the fact that Mr X remained liable for the other PCN. So there is no direct link between the council’s actions and any injustice.
7. The Council sent Mr X a separate letter confirming it had not cancelled the first PCN. Mr X then contacted several Council officers. He is unhappy they did not respond. Meanwhile the penalty charge amount increased because Mr X had not yet paid it. But the Council’s letter outlined the legal options available to Mr X for challenging the PCN. It did not suggest that the normal timescale and process for enforcement would be suspended because he had contacted Council officers. Any injustice Mr X experienced by ultimately paying more to settle that PCN than he could have done at that stage is therefore not linked to the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not directly linked to the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman