The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Authority’s actions related to three penalty charge notices and the actions of the Authority’s enforcement officers. We could not add to the Authority’s response and further investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Authority’s actions related to three Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) and the conduct of its enforcement officers during a visit to his home. He says the matter has caused distress. He wants the Authority to offer a suitable financial remedy and improve its service.
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 or continue an investigation if we decide: we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In its complaint response, the Authority said it had accepted his vehicle was ULEZ compliant in December 2023 and cancelled all PCNs which were registered on its system. However, it said due to a delay updating its system to show his vehicle as exempt from the charge, Mr X was wrongly issued with three further PCNs later that month.
It said as these PCNs went unpaid, they progressed through the enforcement process which resulted in the visit from its enforcement officers. It said once Mr X provided evidence his vehicle was ULEZ exempt, the officers should have halted the visit and contacted Transport for London for further advice. It apologised on behalf of its enforcement officers. It said once Mr X had made it aware of the matter, it cancelled the PCNs. It has also apologised to him and offered him £200 in recognition of the inconvenience and distress caused.
We will not investigate this complaint. Although I acknowledge this matter has caused Mr X distress, the Authority has cancelled the PCNs, apologised to Mr X and offered him a suitable financial remedy. It is unlikely an investigation by us would lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman