The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his representations against a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly consider his representations against a penalty charge notice (PCN). He also complains the Council doubled the amount of the penalty charge owed.
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 may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X has provided copies of the Council’s responses to his representations against the PCN and to the further information he provided in support of his appeal. The Council’s responses show it considered this information but did not deem it sufficient to cancel the PCN and this was a decision it was entitled to reach.
Mr X argued he had no option but to commit a moving traffic contravention due to his medical condition but the information he provided showed only that he received medication for the condition; it did not prove that he was suffering any particular issues at the time of the contravention or that any issues he was experiencing justified committing the contravention.
Mr X also complains the Council doubled the amount of the penalty charge but there is no evidence of fault by the Council in this matter. The full amount of the penalty charge was £130 and while this was discounted by 50% for the first 14 days Mr X did not pay during this period and was not therefore entitled to the discount. The Council reissued the discount following its rejection of Mr X’s representations but again Mr X did not pay during this period and instead appealed against the PCN to London Tribunals as he was entitled to do. The full amount of the PCN was therefore due and this is considered by London Tribunals in its decision.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman