Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council failed to consider his previous correspondence when it rejected his representations against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The Council then said it had not received any contact from Mr Y prior to his representations, which he says is incorrect.
2. Mr Y says he has lost out financially.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y says he mistakenly drove down a road, which was restricted to taxis and bikes, in March 2022. He says he contacted the Council by telephone prior to the PCN being issued to explain his error. He says he then received the PCN and appealed, but his representations were rejected. He complained to the Council, who said he had no record of contact from Mr Y until after the PCN had been issued. It also said that any such contact would be for the appeals process, which was now at an end, after Mr Y paid the penalty. Mr Y then approached us in January 2023.

Analysis

7. Mr Y disputes the outcome of the appeal to the Council for the PCN, saying he made an error by turning into the restricted road. He has now paid the penalty, despite his disagreement with it, instead of using his right to appeal it to the London Tribunals. If Mr Y has felt his appeal was not properly heard or considered, it is for him as the driver and recipient of the PCN to challenge this using his right to approach the London Tribunals.
8. In deciding not to appeal and paying the penalty, Mr Y has legally accepted his liability for the penalty and the validity of the PCN itself and chosen not to appeal against any issue with the process followed by the Council. It is therefore unlikely we would now find fault in the way the Council handled the representations Mr Y made against the PCN. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman