The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
Mr Y complained the Council wrongly and unfairly issued a penalty charge notice (PCN) to him, despite not having issued penalties to other vehicles. Mr Y is also unhappy with the lack of explanation of why he received the PCN as part of the Council’s complaint response.
Mr Y says he feels frustrated by the lack of explanation and is concerned he may have been discriminated against.
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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr Y disputes the validity of the PCN the Council has issued, citing discrimination and unfairness. He has now paid the penalty, despite his disagreement with it, instead of using his right to appeal it to the London Tribunals. His reason for this to avoid a potentially higher penalty. If Mr Y felt that the time allowance was inadequate to meet the requirements or that his vehicle should have been not have been issued with a penalty as others were not also ticketed, it is for him as the driver and recipient of the PCN to challenge this.
In deciding not to appeal and paying the penalty, even under protest, Mr Y has legally accepted his liability for the penalty and the validity of the PCN itself. He has also forfeited his right to appeal, despite his right to do so. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to consider appeals. As he has accepted its validity, it is unlikely we would now find fault in the Council’s enforcement of the PCN. We will not investigate.
As we are not investigating the substantive matter it is not a good use of our public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. Consequently, we will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman