Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council wrongly charged Mr X in relation to penalty charge notices as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further action.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council charged him £1300 to clear a penalty charge notice (PCN) and release his car when the payment should have been £265. Mr X wants the Council to refund the extra amount he considers he was wrongly charged. Mr X says this matter has left him in a difficult position mentally and financially.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complains the Council charged him £1300 to release his car that it had seized when the fee should have been £265. After the payment was made, Mr X sought to challenge it with the Council and his bank, seeking a refund of the extra money he says he was wrongly charged. Mr X applied for a ‘chargeback’ with his bank, but he says he did not receive this as the Council challenged it.
6. In its complaint responses to Mr X, the Council said it made a payment arrangement with him for £1300 to clear multiple PCNs he had incurred and to release his car from its car pound. The Council said due to the size of the payment, Mr X had to make it in person and so would have been aware of how much he was paying. The Council considered Mr X was aware of the payment arrangement and payment amount and therefore rejected his complaint.
7. Mr X has provided us with two receipts; a vehicle removal receipt for £265 and a receipt for a chip and PIN payment of £1300. Mr X considers the £265 vehicle removal receipt is the correct fine and is proof that he was overcharged. Mr X told me he was unaware he was making a £1300 payment.
8. The Council has provided me with a record which it says is a system record of a telephone conversation its officer had with Mr X. The record says: ‘the driver is intending to collect the vehicle for £1300’. It is dated the day before Mr X made the payment. It says the £1300 payment was made by card via ‘Chip and PIN’, so it considers Mr X would have been aware of the amount as he would have had to authorise it with his PIN. It has spoken to staff at the car pound who have indicated they would verbally advise of the amount to be paid before a payment is taken.
9. The Council says the total amount for the outstanding PCNs, regarding which it made the payment agreement, was £1950.

Back to top

My assessment

10. We will not investigate as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council, causing the injustice Mr X claims. It has a record which refers to a payment agreement having been made, prior to Mr X making the payment. This same amount was charged to Mr X the following day when he went to collect his car, and Mr X was required to authorize the payment with his PIN. I note that Mr X disputes he was not aware of the payment but on balance, the evidence available does not support this.
11. The Financial Ombudsman is the independent service that settles disputes with businesses that provide financial services. It can deal with complaints about disputed transactions such as when a customer has asked their card issuer to refund them (through the ‘chargeback’ process) for an incorrect card transaction, but the card issuer hasn’t sorted it out. It may, therefore, be best placed to provide the outcome Mr X seeks.
12. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely that we will find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman