Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s conduct when Mr X tried to contact it in relation to a Penalty Charge Notice. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate peripheral matters, including complaint-handling, when we cannot investigate the substantive matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council's conduct in relation to a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for a moving traffic offence, which he has appealed to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT). His concerns included:
• officer behaviours and Council policies were inconsistent, confrontational, prejudiced and obstructive;
• staff were rude, surly, arrogant and dismissive, they refused to provide their surnames and direct contact numbers;
• he was not enabled to speak directly to the PCN team or the Director of Legal Services, and requests for a callback went unanswered;
• a staff member inappropriately terminated a call;
• the Council did not speak to him as part of its complaint investigation; and
• the Council misunderstood his complaint.
2. Mr X said the matter has affected his physical and mental health and he has been unable to effectively progress his appeal. He wanted the Council to apologise, amend its policies and make service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X’s complaint relates to a PCN he received for a moving traffic offence. He has appealed the PCN to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Mr X’s complaint to us is about how the Council handled his requests for contact to discuss the PCN, and how it handled his complaint about the matter. He says he was not allowed to speak to the relevant staff and says this affected his ability to effectively progress his appeal.
8. We could not investigate the issuing of the PCN itself if Mr X asked us to, because the law prevents us from doing so. The courts have said we can decide not to investigate a complaint about any action by an organisation concerning a matter which the law says we cannot investigate. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2006] EHWCC 2847 (Admin)). It is also not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
9. Mr X’s complaint relates solely to how the Council handled communications about the PCN, which we cannot investigate. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate this complaint. There is not a good reason in this case for us to depart from our usual stance and investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is no evidence the issues Mr X has raised prevented him from exercising his right of appeal, as he has lodged the case with the TPT.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is not a good use of public resources to investigate peripheral matters, including complaint-handling, when we cannot investigate the substantive matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman