The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly advised him about a penalty charge notice. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly told him that the amount of his penalty charge notice (PCN) would be held at the discounted rate of £65 while London Tribunals considered his appeal against the PCN.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
There is a set process for appealing against PCNs and this does not allow a motorist to pay the discounted rate and appeal to London Tribunals. The Council’s email confirmed the case would be placed on hold but did not confirm the amount of the PCN would be held at £65. It also seemed to relate to the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s representations rather than any appeal to London Tribunals.
In any event, the sequence of events shows Mr X’s first priority was to appeal against the PCN and London Tribunals has now considered his appeal. It ordered him to pay the full amount of the PCN, which is £130, and Mr X has done this.
We cannot therefore say, on balance, that had Mr X been given the choice of paying the PCN at the discounted rate of £65 or appealing, he would have chosen to pay the £65 and forfeited his right of appeal. The Council’s advice has therefore not caused Mr X injustice, and the amount of the injustice claimed (£65) is not significant enough to warrant investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman