The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed in responding to Mr X’s representations about a penalty charge notice as any fault by the Council has not caused a significant injustice to Mr X.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council took around six months to reject his representations about a penalty charge notice (PCN). Mr X says this has caused him grief and inconvenience. Mr X seeks £150 compensation from the Council for the delay and for the PCN to be cancelled.
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 we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complains about malpractice by the Council when it took over six months to respond to the representations he made about a PCN. Mr X says the Council should have responded within 14 days.
Mr X considers the PCN is invalid and should be cancelled as the issuing of the Notice to Owner (the notice which allows a formal appeal to be made) will be done outside of six months since the PCN was issued, should Mr X decide to continue to challenge the PCN. Mr X says this is contrary to the law.
While I recognise Mr X remains dissatisfied with how the Council has dealt with this matter, I do not consider he is caused a level of injustice, from any Council fault, serious enough to warrant our involvement.
The Council’s letter rejecting Mr X’s representations, gave him a further opportunity to pay the PCN at the 50% discounted rate. It also explained how Mr X could formally appeal against the PCN.
On receipt of that letter, Mr X was therefore in the same position he would have been, had the Council replied promptly.
Mr X has spent some time contacting the Council about the PCN/delay but I do not consider he is impacted by this to a degree that would warrant our involvement.
Mr X considers there has been procedural impropriety by the Council in respect of its delay. Mr X has the right to make an appeal to London Tribunals on these grounds, ultimately, by following the appeal procedure provided in law. It is reasonable for Mr X to follow the statutory appeal procedure. The Tribunal has the power to cancel the PCN; we do not.
For these reasons, we will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any Council fault has not caused Mr X an injustice to a degree that would warrant our involvement and Mr X can appeal against the PCN to London Tribunals.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman