Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Fare and its increase to £80. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about a Penalty Fare, for a bus fare, that has increased to £80. He still disputes the fine and says he was told it was £40.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Authority. This includes the correspondence about the Penalty Fare and the appeal. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In December the Authority issued a Penalty Fare Notice. The fine was £80 but reduced to £40 if paid within 14 days. The letter gave Mr X the chance to pay or appeal.
6. Mr X challenged the fine. He said it was an error that his card had not been registered; he explained what had happened and why it was a mistake. The Authority rejected his challenge but invited a second appeal.
7. Mr X appealed again. The Authority again rejected his challenge and pointed out it was his responsibility to ensure his card was validated. The Authority gave Mr X another chance to pay at the reduced rate.
8. Mr X appealed to the Independent Appeals Panel. The Panel accepted Mr X had not been trying to avoid payment but had made an unintended error. But, the Panel rejected the appeal because Mr X had made a journey he had not paid for. On 17 February the Panel gave Mr X another 14 days to pay at the reduced rate. The letter included the different payment methods, including on-line payment.
9. Mr X continued to dispute the fine. He referred to making a claim in the small claims court. He also offered to pay the cost of the bus fare for the journey rather than the fine. The Authority warned Mr X he could be prosecuted if he did not pay the Penalty Fare.
10. On 6 March the Authority issued a reminder. The fine was now £80 because Mr X had not paid within 14 days.
11. On 9 March Mr X said he would pay £40. In response the Authority explained the fine was £80 because he had not paid before the deadline. On 10 March Mr X repeated his request to pay £40.
12. The fine remains unpaid. The Authority told me it may consider prosecution if Mr X does not pay.
13. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority. It correctly notified Mr X of the fine, his appeal rights and of the amount due at each stage and the deadlines. Mr X has lost the right to pay at the reduced rate because he did not pay within 14 days of the Panel decision. There is no suggestion of fault in the way the Authority administered the Penalty Fare so no reason to start an investigation.
14. I appreciate Mr X continues to dispute the Penalty Fare but his appeal has been considered by an Independent Panel. We do not act as a further appeal body and it is not our role to comment on the decision reached by the Panel.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman