Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking penalties because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council did not make him aware that a Penalty Charge Notice was progressing with bailiffs and then after Mr Y made a payment arrangement with the bailiffs failed to take payment and subsequently behaved in a rude and threatening manner towards him. He also complained that he made a Subject Access Request (SAR) which was refused, and the Council said it had considered his complaint when it had not.
2. Mr Y says this has taken up his time and energy and he feels failed and lied to by the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council has recognised as part of its complaint response that letters relating to bailiffs, although intended to be sent, we not sent to Mr Y and that matters progressed in a way which was below its standards. It has apologised for this, as have the bailiffs used. The bailiffs acting on behalf of the Council has also refunded a visit fee, when it became clear that had correspondence been correctly sent to Mr Y would not have been necessary. This amounted to over £200.
8. This is a proportionate and appropriate remedy and having refunded the costs Mr Y had paid for the visit, it puts him back into the position he would have been in had the fault not occurred. It has also sought to remedy the emotional impact through the apologies given. We are satisfied with this action from the Council and will not investigate this further.
9. Mr Y has also complained about the response he has received to a SAR. The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation. This includes failing to disclose information.
10. There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO, and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use. Where someone has a complaint about data protection, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the ICO. This is because the ICO is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints. I consider that to be the case here and Mr Y should therefore approach the ICO about his concerns. We will not investigate.
11. As we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public funds to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman