Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Authority has refused his suggested payment plan for an outstanding payment for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). He says the refusal is because the Authority did not receive the suggested payment plan within 28 days.

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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mr Y and the Authority provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Authority issued a PCN to Mr Y after he entered the Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) without payment in August 2019. Mr Y unsuccessfully appealed to the Authority and the London Tribunals. As Mr Y has appealed the validity of the PCN or the process it is not a matter for us to consider as explained in paragraph three.
6. Mr Y wrote to the Authority in October 2021 about paying the PCN, explaining because of his financial difficulties he could not pay more than £1 a month to pay the debt owed. The Authority refused this and said Mr Y needed to pay £79 a month for the amount to be paid within six months. Mr Y refused this arrangement, saying he could not afford this amount. He then approached us in February 2022.

Analysis

7. Mr Y used his right of appeal to the London Tribunals. He was unsuccessful at the London Tribunals and the Authority registered the debt from the penalty with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) based at Northampton County Court. The TEC has then issued a Charge Certificate, stating Mr Y owes the debt to the Authority. The Authority has now passed the issue of payment of the penalty to enforcement agents.
8. As the Authority has registered the debt with the TEC and a Charge Certificate issued, the debt is now owed according to the court. It is then a matter for the person or body the debt is owed to, not Mr Y, to decide whether it is willing to accept a payment plan and if so, on what terms. Consequently, payment plans are entirely discretionary.
9. The Authority has rejected Mr Y’s proposal of £1 per month. This is because Mr Y will not pay the debt off within six months, not because of the time taken for Mr Y to suggest a payment plan. It has suggested an alternative of £79 per month, with will be sufficient for Mr Y to pay for two PCN penalties he owes within six months.
10. While Mr Y says he cannot afford this, it is not fault for the Authority to have refused his suggestion and given an alternative to ensure the debt is paid to it within a time it considers suitable.
11. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman