Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Penalty Charge Notice. Mr X has been to court and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not take his disabilities into consideration when issuing, and dealing with, a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). He says this negatively affected his mental health, caused a financial loss and a loss of trust in the system, and made him feel different to other people.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. 

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued Mr X a PCN for driving on a road during restricted hours. As the debt remained unpaid, the Council registered the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), part of the county court. Mr X contacted the Council to question the PCN and complain about the Council’s communication. The Council advised him to make a late application to the TEC to seek to stop recovery of the debt.
8. The TEC rejected Mr X’s application. It would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to raise his reasons for believing the PCN recovery action should not have been escalated, if he considered the information was not provided in a way he could deal with. As Mr X has been to court, we cannot investigate the Council’s issuing of the PCN or the other formal documents it issued when pursuing the debt.
9. Mr X complains the way the Council communicated with him did not accommodate his disability-related needs and his requests to be contacted in specific ways. The Council explained it must issue legal documents related to PCNs in writing, by post. It is unlikely we would find fault with the Council for issuing the notices as it did.
10. Mr X further complains the Council did not support him with appealing the PCN. As the Council was pursuing payment of the debt, we would be unlikely to find fault by the Council in not helping Mr X appeal, given the conflict of interest that would have caused.
11. After Mr X contacted the Council, the Council agreed his requests to leave voice notes and help him by telephone, given his difficulties dealing with letters. It also recorded his needs on its system for any future correspondence. Mr X is dissatisfied the Council did not do this sooner. The Council states it did not know about Mr X’s needs sooner. It is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view about this now. The key point is that the Council has now committed to communicating with Mr X in a way that meets his needs.
12. The Council has also offered Mr X the opportunity to pay the PCN at the original rate of £35. Therefore, I do not consider any remaining injustice to be significant enough to warrant investigation and we would be unlikely to achieve significantly more.
13. Mr X further complains about a Council officer’s behaviour towards him on the telephone and the Council’s handling of his request for an to meet him in person. It would be disproportionate to investigate these points if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. We cannot consider the points where Mr X has taken court action. There is also not significant enough remaining injustice to warrant investigation, nor would we be likely to achieve significantly more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman