Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a fixed penalty notice that the Council issued. This is because there is insufficient evidence of any fault which would have caused the complainant an injustice. Had the complainant disputed the offence he had the opportunity to refuse payment and then present his defence in court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains that the Council deleted video footage relating to a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) that he was issued for littering. Mr X says the failure to provide the footage means he was denied his right to appeal the FPN.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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 X was issued a FPN for littering. The FPN explained how Mr X could appeal the charge and that if Mr X did not pay it the Council could pursue a prosecution through the courts. The FPN said that of Mr X paid the penalty charge it would discharge any liability to conviction for the offence. Mr X chose to pay the charge. The Council deleted the video footage of the incident shortly after.
7. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would have caused Mr X an injustice. Only the courts can decide if an offence has been committed. If Mr X disputed the FPN he had the option to not pay the penalty charge and present his defence to the courts.
8. As soon as Mr X paid the penalty, he discharged any liability for conviction. Therefore, the Council’s evidence of the offence is no longer relevant. Therefore, its decision to delete the footage has not caused Mr X an injustice.
9. If Mr X is dissatisfied with how the Council responded to his subject access request, he may complaint to the Information Commissioner who is better placed to deal with such complaints.
10. Mr X has complained about how the Council dealt with his complaints about these matters.  However, we do not generally investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issue. Therefore, this is not a matter we will investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing Mr X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman