Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council issuing a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) to his son, Mr Y. The Council has decided to cancel the FPN and take no further action. It has also apologised to Mr X for the delay in responding to his correspondence. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating further. It is also reasonable for Mr Y to pursue his rights under General Data Protection Regulations to request the Council’s video footage of the incident.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his son, Mr Y, about the way in which the Council issued and then dealt with a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN). Mr Y strongly refutes the action that led to the FPN being issued. Mr X is also unhappy with the actions and conduct of the Council Officer who issued the FPN to Mr Y. Mr X wants an independent investigation into this matter.

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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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. The Council has apologised to Mr X and his family for the distress caused by the significant delay in responding to his concerns about the FPN issued to his son, Mr Y. The Council has explained it is no longer pursuing court action against Mr Y and has cancelled the FPN it issued to him. The Council explained the Officer who issued the FPN no longer works for the Council and would no longer be able to give evidence in court about the incident.
7. We will not normally investigate a complaint where we are unlikely to add to a previous investigation. It is not a good use of public money to do so. In this case, the question for us is whether our intervention would add to the outcome the Council has already provided. There is nothing to suggest that it would do so.
8. Mr X has asked the Council for the evidence it intended to use against Mr Y in court proceedings. In particular, he wishes to view the body worn camera footage from the Council Officers that attended when the FPN was issued. We will not intervene in this issue because it is reasonable for Mr Y to exercise his right to access such information under the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) by making a Subject Access Request to the Council. If Mr Y is dissatisfied with the Council’s response to his request, it would be reasonable for him to bring his concerns to the attention of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which is better placed than us to consider them.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating further. It is also reasonable for Mr Y to use his rights to access data under General Data Protection Regulations and then approach the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman