Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly issued him a Fixed Penalty Notice for littering. This is because Mr X could have raised a defence against the issuing of the FPN in court if he considered it was incorrectly issued. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not providing video footage of the alleged offence. This is because it is a data matter best considered and decided by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly issued him a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for littering as he did not commit the offence. He also complains the Council has not provided the footage it holds in relation to the 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 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)
3. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complained to the Council after he was issued a FPN for littering. Mr X said he did not commit the offence and had not been shown any evidence of the alleged offence being committed.
9. The Council set out what was held in the footage and explained it could not take any further action on the matter. It explained that if Mr X wanted to dispute the FPN then the way to do so was to not pay the fine and let the matter proceed to the magistrate’s court.
10. Mr X paid the FPN rather than raising a defence against it in the magistrate’s court.
11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because Mr X could have raised a defence against the matter in court if he considered the FPN was wrongly issued. We are not an appeal body and we cannot decide whether the offence was committed; nor whether Mr X is liable. These were matters the court would have considered and decided had Mr X challenged it rather than paying the fine. That was the suitable route to take to challenge the matter, as set out in the Council response We also cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks to have his payment refunded as he chose to pay the fine in order to close the matter.
12. Mr X’s complaint about the Council not providing the video evidence he requested is a data matter which the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is best placed to consider and decide. It is the body set up to consider complaints about data matters such as this.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because Mr X could have used his right to raise a defence against the issuing of the FPN in court. That is the appropriate route to use to challenge a FPN. The court would have then reached a view on the issues raised and any video evidence relied upon by the Council. The data matter is best considered by the ICO rather than this office.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman