The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about two penalty charge notices issued by the Council in error. This is because the Council cancelled the notices and the matter did not cause Ms X significant enough injustice to warrant any further remedy.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council wrongly issued her two penalty charge notices (PCNs) in respect of a vehicle that was not hers. She says the issue of the PCNs caused her stress, wasted her time and led to postage costs of £2.55 to dispute the PCNs.
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 do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
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.
I understand Ms X is unhappy about the PCNs but the Council cancelled them as soon as Ms X disputed them. I do not therefore consider the injustice caused to Ms X is significant enough to warrant further investigation or a financial remedy.
The Council could instead have declined to cancel the PCNs and if it had done this Ms X would have needed to appeal, which would have been significantly more onerous. There is no mechanism within the appeals process to request compensation and Ms X would not therefore have been entitled to compensation even if she had gone through this process.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the issue of the PCNs did not cause Ms X significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman