The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
The complaint
Mr Y complained the Council wrongly issued five Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) to his employer, who paid the penalties and are now trying to recover the cost from Mr Y. Mr Y is unhappy the Council will now not allow him to appeal the PCNs. He is also unhappy with the Council’s handling of his complaint.
Mr Y says the issue has cost him £400.
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 and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr Y says he is the registered keeper of the vehicle and that when he parked, he had a valid parking permit. He says as a result he believes the PCNs were invalid.
The Council is required to send PCN correspondence to the address of the registered keeper as provided to it by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). In this case, the address the PCNs were sent to were to Mr Y’s employer, who he leases the vehicle from. Mr Y’s employer then, as previously agreed with Mr Y when he leased the vehicle, paid the PCNs and has since then sought payment from Mr Y.
Mr Y then complained to the Council and asked to appeal. However, as Mr Y is not, according to the DVLA provided record, the registered keeper, the Council will not comment on the PCN in accordance with its data protection policy.
Analysis As the Council sent the PCN correspondence to the DVLA registered keeper, in this case to the employer, we would not consider it fault for the PCNs to not have been sent to Mr Y. Where the PCN is issued to the DVLA register keeper and that keeper then pays the PCN, Mr Y would be considered a third party to that PCN. As Mr Y is a third party to the PCN, he does not have the right to appeal the PCN or its validity. Further, as the PCN has been paid, the registered keeper, as listed on the PCN, has accepted liability and has given up the right to appeal.
Consequently, the Council’s decision not to consider an appeal from Mr Y will not be investigated as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify doing so. Mr Y may wish to contact the DVLA to ask for their records to be updated or corrected.
As Mr Y’s employer, as the registered keeper according to the DVLA has paid the PCN, they have accepted liability for it. As liability has been accepted, we would not find fault in the Council’s issuing of the PCN. As there is not enough evidence of fault, as liability has been accepted, we will not investigate this issue.
Any dispute over the payment of the £400 by the employer or over the money Mr Y is now being asked to pay by his employer would be a private dispute between those parties about the contractual arrangements made when he leased the vehicle. We cannot investigate this.
Mr Y has also complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint. As we are not investigating the substantive complaint, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate. Therefore, we will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman