The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the wording of the Council’s rejection of a penalty charge notice appeal as this represents insufficient injustice to warrant our further involvement.
The complaint
Mr X complains the wording used by the Council in its rejection of his appeal against a bus lane penalty charge notice (PCN) is insulting and wrong. Mr X says this has made him very angry.
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
While I recognise Mr X is unhappy about the wording of the Council’s response, this, from our perspective, does not represent a level of loss or harm to Mr X serious enough to warrant our further involvement.
Any injustice to Mr X from the PCN itself can be remedied by Mr X following the statutory appeal process provided in law, ultimately to an independent tribunal.
For these reasons, we will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he is caused insufficient injustice to justify our further involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman