The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Challenge Notice because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council did not reply to his challenge regarding a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). He wants to know why the Council did not reply.
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 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the correspondence about the PCN. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued Mr X with a PCN in January. The fine was £130 but this was reduced to £65 if paid within 14 days. Mr X immediately challenged the fine.
The Council responded in February but sent the response to the wrong address. It is possible Mr X provided the wrong address but I do not know if this is what happened. The response from the Council rejected his challenge and gave him another 14 days to pay £65.
Mr X did not receive the response. He kept sending emails chasing the Council for a reply but says he receive virtually no responses.
In February the Council sent the Notice to Owner (NTO) to Mr X. The Council sent it to the correct address. The NTO gave Mr X the option to pay £130 or make formal representations against the challenge. If the Council rejected the formal challenge Mr X would have been able to appeal to the tribunal. The Council must send the NTO to the registered keeper so the Council would have obtained Mr X’s address from DVLA.
During March Mr X sent further emails and contacted the complaints team. He spoke to an officer and the Council re-offered the opportunity to pay £65. Mr X paid £65 because he was worried the fine would increase.
Mr X continued to contact the Council. In response the Council said it had closed the case because Mr X had paid the fine.
The Council could have handled this better in as much as it could have responded to Mr X's emails more quickly and provided a summary to explain what happened; for example, it could have clarified that it responded to Mr X’s initial challenge and perhaps have commented on who provided the wrong address. That said, the Council offered a response because the address issue was mentioned during a call and the Council re-offered payment at £65.
But, while I think the Council could have managed some aspects of this case more effectively, I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. This is because Mr X paid the PCN at the reduced rate but, if he thought he had not committed a parking offence, he could have used the NTO, which the Council sent to the correct address, to start the formal appeals process. If he had won the appeal he would not have paid anything; if he lost he would have paid £130. Mr X chose to pay at the reduced rate and, while I appreciate he may have felt stressed and frustrated at the lack of response, this does not amount to a degree of injustice which requires an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman