Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to issue a partial refund for a Penalty Charge Notice. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement. We will not investigate Mr X’s further complaint about how the Council handled his request for information. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider it.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains his original attempt to pay for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) failed due to an error in the Council’s payment system. Due to non-payment, the Council issued a charge certificate and increased the amount payable.
2. Mr X paid the new amount and asked the Council to refund him the difference, but it refused. Mr X complains about this decision and says the Council failed to provide him with information he sought.
3. Mr X says the matters caused him a financial loss of £160.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council issued the charge certificate which increased the amount payable for the PCN from £80 to £240. Mr X paid £240 and then asked the Council to consider refunding him the difference of £160. This is because he said his attempt to pay the original £80 failed due to an error in its system.
10. In its response, the Council said there was evidence of Mr X accessing its payment system, but no successful payment was made.
11. The Council said it was Mr X’s responsibility to ensure the payment had been successful. It refused to refund him.
12. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant our involvement. The available evidence shows it considered Mr X’s submissions and considered whether to issue a refund but decided there were no grounds to issue one.
13. Typically, a PCN is considered closed when payment is made. The Council was not obliged to issue Mr X with a refund. As outlined in paragraph five, where there is no evidence of fault in how a decision was made, we cannot question the outcome.
14. In any case, Mr X’s desired outcome is for the Council to issue him a refund of £160. The Ombudsman cannot tell the Council it should do this, and there are no other worthwhile outcomes achievable by our involvement.
15. Mr X also complained about how the Council responded to his request for information about this matter.
16. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) enforces data protection legislation. The ICO can investigate complaints about data protection and is better placed to consider this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our involvement, and for the rest, the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman