The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal the matter to London Tribunals. In any event, the Authority identified its error before referring the matter to court, and cancelled the penalty. There is insufficient evidence of injustice caused to Mr X.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Authority wrongly issued him a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and threatened him with court and enforcement action. Mr X says the matter caused him distress, and says he had to appoint a solicitor. The Authority later cancelled the PCN after identifying it had been issued in error, so he wants it to pay his legal fees of £336 and make him a payment for his distress.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) 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 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 the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X received a PCN from the Authority, despite him having exported the vehicle in question at an earlier date. Mr X had the right to make formal representations to the Authority, and then appeal the matter to London Tribunals on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur. We would not normally investigate complaints about PCNs because it would usually be reasonable for a person to use this right. Given that Mr X says the Authority threatened court action, it would appear he did not do so. Where a person does not pay or appeal, the Authority will refer the matter to the courts. However in this case, before the courts became involved, the Authority identified it had made an error and cancelled the PCN.
We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the authority. This means that we will normally only investigate a complaint where: the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of its faults or failures, or there are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
Mr X says the Authority’s error caused him distress. However, this was not to the extent that would indicate a significant injustice that would warrant investigation.
Nor were Mr X’s legal fees a direct result of the Authority’s actions. London Tribunals’ website advises “Nearly all appeals to the adjudicators are conducted without legal representation”. It provides links to sources of free legal advice. The cost of simply paying a PCN is significantly less than the fees Mr X incurred.
Mr X chose to appoint legal representation, but this was not something he was required to do, nor was it a direct result of the Authority’s actions. We would have no basis to recommend the Authority refunds that cost.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for him to use his right of appeal to London Tribunals. However, the Authority cancelled the PCN in any event when it noticed its error, and there is therefore insufficient evidence of injustice to warrant investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman