Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) issued to Ms X. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council did not properly follow its own procedures when she wrote to it about an FPN with which she had been issued. She says if it had responded to her communication, it would have been able to check, via body cam footage, what she had been told by the issuing Enforcement Officer about an “appeals” process and that it could have treated her communication as her representation against the issuing of the FPN.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Issued with a FPN for walking her dog off lead in a controlled area, Ms X emailed the Council to complain as had not been aware she needed to have her dog on a lead and because she did not consider the signage about the controlled area to have been clear enough.
6. She did not receive a reply to her email and paid the charge so accepting liability for the offence and avoiding being taken to court.
7. In responding to her complaint about its handling of her case, the Council apologised for failing to reply to her email which it acknowledged had been overlooked. However, it said while the body cam footage had now been delated and could not be viewed, it was satisfied its Officer would have been aware of the legal process involved when an FPN is issued and that while an appeals process does not exist, the Council has a representation process which Ms X could have used. It referred to information about this process on the FPN issued to Ms X and on its website.
8. While there was fault by the Council because it failed to respond to Ms X’s email, there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. It would have been open to Ms X to have followed the representation process as detailed on the FPN and website which makes clear representations will only be considered using the appropriate form. Ms X’s email not in the required format and she accepted liability by paying the charge and discharging the FPN so ending the matter.
9. The body cam footage is no longer available so we cannot know now what was said to Ms X when the FPN was issued. The Council has explained to Ms X why part of the area she was walking in requires dogs to be kept on leads while the area adjacent does not.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman