Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices. It is reasonable for Miss X to use her right of appeal to London Tribunals for one PCN. Miss X has not experienced a significant injustice relating to another PCN the Council cancelled.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s actions relating to two Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). She complained the Council:
• refused to admit it had wrongly issued one PCN, meaning she had to appeal to the Council three times before it was cancelled;
• said cancelling the PCN was as a goodwill gesture, rather than accepting fault;
• refused to consider mitigating circumstances for a second PCN which it issued while she was away from home;
• increased a fine without proper notification;
• failed to provide explanations, acknowledge errors and investigate procedural issues, showing a lack of transparency, accountability, and fairness in its practices; and
• failed to respond to her request for information.
2. Miss X said the matter caused her significant stress and inconvenience and she wanted the Council to make service improvements, cancel the second PCN, apologise and compensate her for her inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. 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))
5. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection or freedom of information. 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

7. I considered information provided by the complainant.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Miss X complained to us about two PCNs and other related matters.
10. The Council cancelled the first PCN after Miss X wrote to it three times. Miss X raises concerns with this and says it caused her inconvenience. Given the Council cancelled the PCN, Miss X no longer had appeal rights and so we could consider the matter. However, as the Council cancelled the PCN Miss X no longer experienced a financial injustice. Any remaining injustice, in the way of frustration and inconvenience, is not sufficient to warrant further consideration by us.
11. In relation to the second PCN, the Council has clearly explained Miss X’s right of appeal. It explained Miss X would receive a Notice to Owner, which would allow her to submit formal representations. If the Council rejected those, she would then have a statutory right of appeal to London Tribunals. It is reasonable for Miss X to use her right of appeal. The tribunal is best placed to consider Miss X’s mitigating circumstances, and there is not a reason for us to consider the matter instead.
12. We will not consider peripheral matters, relating to the Council’s procedures and communication. These matters are too intertwined with the PCNs themselves, which we will not investigate, and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate peripheral matters when we are not investigating the substantive matter.
13. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the body that investigates complaints about how organisations handle requests for information. There is not a good reason for us to consider this part of Miss X’s complaint instead.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman