The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council issued a penalty charge notice and failed to deal properly with his communications about its online payment system showing the wrong amount. There is insufficient injustice and we cannot achieve what Mr X wants. Mr X appealed to the traffic adjudicator which upheld the penalty charge notice. The Council’s complaint reply gave Mr X an opportunity to pay the charge at the rate owed before the online problem but he did not pay.
The complaint
Mr Y complains for Mr X that the Council issued a penalty charge notice in March 2021 for a moving traffic offence. Mr Y says the Council wrongly issued four penalty charge notices. Mr Y says the Council caused time, trouble, and distress. He says the Council should cancel the penalty charge notice due to its procedural errors.
Mr Y complains that when Mr X lost his appeal to the London Tribunals traffic adjudicator, Mr X was unable to pay the Council the amount owed of £130. The online payment system wrongly showed a debt of £195 which included the charge certificate increase. Mr Y says they wrote to the Council, in October 2021, about the payment problem but it failed to reply. Mr Y says the Council has demanded Mr X pays differing amounts and in November 2021 demanded £260. He says the Council’s communications and complaint handling was poor.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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: any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered Mr X’s information and comments. The Council has provided the complaint correspondence and penalty charge notifications. I have considered the information on the Council’s website about paying a penalty charge notice fine.
My assessment
I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons: There is no injustice caused to Mr X from the handling of the penalty charge notice (PCN) and we cannot achieve what Mr X wants which is the cancellation of the charge. On 15 April 2021, the Council rejected Mr X’s challenge to the PCN. The notice explains the next steps including how to pay the charge or appeal the PCN. The London Tribunals adjudicator rejected Mr Y’s appeal in September 2021. That decision could only be challenged at court and not by this office. The adjudicator told Mr Y he must pay the Council the full penalty charge of £130.
There is insufficient injustice and nothing to achieve by investigating the complaint about the charge certificates or the period after the adjudicator appeal including the communications: The adjudicator dealt with the first charge certificate issued on 17 May which was issued before the Council received notification that Mr X had made a late appeal and because he had not paid the PCN. The Council has apologised for issuing the second and third charge certificates during the period of the appeal but there was no injustice because further action was not taken. The final charge certificate was issued on 25 October 2021 when Mr X says he had twice raised the problem of payment without a reply. It did not result in the Council taking enforcement action at that time.
I consider the Council offered Mr X a fair outcome to his complaint which put him in the position he should have been. On 3 February 2022, the Council replied saying it would put the case on hold until 17 February so Mr X could pay the fine of £130, the amount owed in September following the rejected adjudicator appeal. The Council warned Mr X that failure to pay the fine would result in the costs increasing. The Council has also said it reviewed the original contravention and was satisfied the PCN should stand.
Mr X was not happy with the Council’s offer or the Council blaming a technical error for his problem, but this is not a valid reason for not paying the PCN. I do not consider there is sufficient public interest to investigate or personal injustice. On 11 March 2022 the Council wrote to Mr X and advised him that, because he had not paid, the amount owed has risen to £203.
Final decision
The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council issued a penalty charge notice and failed to deal properly with his communications about its online payment system showing the wrong amount. There is insufficient injustice and we cannot achieve what Mr X wants. Mr X appealed to the traffic adjudicator which upheld the penalty charge notice. The Council’s complaint reply gave Mr X an opportunity to pay the charge at the rate owed before the online problem, but he did not pay.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman