Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking or traffic contravention. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council did not properly consider his representations about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged traffic contravention. He paid the PCN but made informal representations again after the Council rejected his initial informal appeal.

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 or continue 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 from the complainant and the Council and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. I note the Council refused Mr X’s informal challenge when he received the PCN.
5. Parliament has laid down a detailed process allowing individuals the right to challenge PCNs they may receive from the Council. If Mr X wished to challenge the PCN he should not have paid and instead made formal representations. If the Council rejected his formal representations he could have then appealed to London Tribunals.
6. There is insufficient evidence of fault in this process to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the PCN. Mr X could have followed the statutory procedure at the time.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman