The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council threatened him with bailiffs while ignoring the challenge he had made against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Mr X wants the Council to revoke the PCN.
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 an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the correspondence about the PCN and emails from Mr X to the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued Mr X with a PCN. Mr X says he immediately requested a copy of the CCTV via the Council’s website and filed a challenge explaining why he disputed the PCN. The Council says it has no record of this challenge.
The Council issued a Charge Certificate which increased the fine to £195 and said bailiffs could be instructed if Mr X did not pay. The Council issued the Charge Certificate because it had no record of any contact from Mr X.
Mr X sent an email a few days later saying he had challenged the PCN in February. The Council failed to log this email and, as a result, sent a reminder for £195.
Mr X sent another email a week later. The Council reviewed the PCN and cancelled it on 3 April. In the meantime, Mr X had appealed to the tribunal although it was too soon for him to do this because he had not received a Notice of Rejection. The tribunal withdrew Mr X’s appeal because the Council had cancelled the PCN.
Mr X sent further emails wanting to know how to appeal, again disputing the PCN, and stating the Council had not responded to previous emails. The Council confirmed in mid-May it had cancelled the PCN.
The Council could have managed this case better in terms of communication and responding to emails. I do not know what happened to Mr X’s challenge in February but the Council received Mr X’s email in March but failed to process it. The Council should have responded at that stage and it had the opportunity to cancel the PCN a couple of weeks earlier than it did.
But, while the Council could have cancelled the PCN earlier and should have responded more effectively to Mr X’s emails, there is not enough injustice to require an investigation. This is because the Council cancelled the PCN and Mr X has not incurred any costs. And, while one letter referred to the possible use of bailiffs, this was not a threat but a warning about what could happen. Mr X was caused some time and trouble which could have been avoided if the Council had communicated better, but this does not amount to a degree of injustice requiring an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman