The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the amount due for a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant appealed to the tribunal. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council misled him and said he could pay a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) at the discounted rate of £35 if he appealed to the tribunal and lost. He also complains the Council then added a further £35. Mr X wants a refund, compensation and for the Council to provide the correct information.
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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the letters about the PCN and the tribunal decision. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
If someone pays a PCN promptly, and does not appeal to the tribunal, they can pay at the reduced rate of 50%. The law does not allow people to lose an appeal and pay the discounted rate.
Mr X challenged a PCN. The PCN was £70. The Council rejected his challenge and issued a Notice of Rejection (NOR). The NOR gave Mr X another chance to pay at the reduced rate. It said, “if you decide to pay the charge and not continue with the appeals process, you can still take advantage of the discounted charge of £35 if you pay within 14 days…” The NOR also gave Mr X a code so he could appeal to the tribunal. Ms X paid £35. He then appealed to the tribunal.
Before registering the appeal, the tribunal told Mr X that if he lost the appeal the Council may require him to pay the balance of £35. Then tribunal said that payment of the discounted rate is accepted as swift resolution and is deemed to be acceptance of the contravention. The tribunal asked Mr X if he wanted to proceed with the appeal.
Mr X did not withdraw the appeal. The tribunal adjudicator dismissed the appeal and said Mr X must pay £35 within 28 days. The adjudicator referred to the dispute about the amount of payment and said Mr X had been advised that if he lost he would have to pay another £35. The tribunal decided the full amount of £70 was due.
Mr X did not pay within 28 days. The Council issued a charge certificate which increased the total amount due to £105. Mr X paid another £70.
The law says we cannot consider any matter that has been considered by the tribunal. The tribunal decided Mr X must pay an additional £35 because the full amount of £70 was due. The adjudicator referred to Mr X’s submission that he thinks the Council told him only £35 would be due; the adjudicator also referred to the information provided by the tribunal before the appeal was registered. The issues have been considered by the tribunal so I have no power to start an investigation.
In addition, the law says that if someone does not pay a PCN the Council can issue a charge certificate which increases the amount due by 50%. Mr X did not pay within 28 days so there is no suggestion of fault in the Council increasing the amount to £105.
Final decision
We cannot investigate this complaint because Mr X appealed to the tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman