The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not tell the complainant he would have to pay the standard amount for a Penalty Charge Notice if he appealed to the tribunal. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council was deceptive because it did not explain he would have to pay £60, rather than £30, if he appealed to the tribunal about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and lost the appeal.
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: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or 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 letters about the PCN, the complaint correspondence, the regulations and the Council’s website. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued Mr X with a PCN. The PCN said the fine was £60 but would be reduced by one half if paid within 21 days. The PCN explained how Mr X could challenge the fine.
Mr X challenged the fine. The Council issued a Notice of Rejection (NOR). The NOR rejected his challenge and said “£30 is now payable… and must be paid within 21 days...". The NOR also explained Mr X had 28 days to pay £60. The NOR stated, “you must now decide whether to pay the PCN or appeal to the independent adjudicator”.
Mr X appealed to the tribunal and did so within 21 days. Mr X lost the appeal. The tribunal decision stated Mr X must pay £60.
Mr X paid £60 but complained the Council had been deceptive and not explained he would have to pay £60 if he appealed and lost. In response the Council explained that the standard fine is £60 and the reduction is only available to people who pay within 21 days. The Council denied being deceptive and referred to its website which states the discount is not available to people who appeal to the tribunal. Mr X says he is being penalised because he does not have regular internet access and all the information should be in the letters.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The NOR states Mr X had 21 days to pay at the reduced rate or 28 days to pay £60. It also states Mr X must decide whether to pay or appeal and says the charge will increase to £90 if no action is taken. I appreciate Mr X may have misunderstood, and thought he could appeal, lose, and pay £30, but this is not stated and I do not find the letters to be misleading. Mr X did not pay within 21 says so he lost the opportunity to pay at the reduced rate.
I have checked the regulations and the PCN and NOR contain all the information they are required to include and the regulations do not state the Council must say the reduced rate is not available to people who appeal. In addition, while I recognise Mr X is not a regular internet user, in terms of considering whether other people could potentially be misled, the website states that the discount is not available to people who appeal. The Council used different wording on the website but that may be because the PCN and NOR are required by the regulations to include certain statements and they are formal documents.
I also will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. I acknowledge Mr X thinks he has paid too much for the fine but, even if there was evidence of fault, a dispute over £30 does not represent a degree of injustice which requires an investigation. And, I have not found the wording of the documents, which is the standard wording used by most councils, to be misleading to the extent that there is a risk of many people being misled.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman