The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council issued him a duplicate penalty charge notice. This is because the matter did not cause Mr X significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council issued him two penalty charge notices for the same contravention. He paid the first one and spent 30 minutes confirming with his card provider and the Council that his payment had processed correctly and he did not need to pay again.
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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered 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 Mr X is unhappy that he received the PCN twice and spent 30 minutes researching whether his payment had gone through but the injustice he claims is not significant enough to warrant further investigation or any financial remedy.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s alleged fault did not cause Mr X significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman