Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs), and about handling contacts and information requests from Mr X. We cannot by law investigate the PCN matters, the Information Commissioner can better consider complaints about information, and it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to a court of law to decide whether the Council has discriminated against him.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council:
1. issued two traffic Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) illegally when he parked using a Blue Badge;
2. failed to engage with his correspondence and contacts about them;
3. did not provide the information he asked for about them; and
4. discriminated against him unlawfully by not meeting his need for adjustments to its procedures.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended.)

4. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X has already appealed to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for the two PCNs issued to him. The law says we cannot investigate any issue that has been the subject of an appeal to the Tribunal.
8. Mr X has made Freedom of Information (FoI) requests to the Council and says it has failed to respond. Where we receive complaints about FoI, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
9. We cannot decide if an organisation has failed to adjust for disability or breached the Equality Act 2010. Only the courts can do this. It would therefore be reasonable for Mr X to make any discrimination claim in court.
10. The law sets out a clear procedure for challenging a PCN. It does not require the Council to reply to contacts and correspondence outside that procedure as Mr X wanted. We could not therefore say it was at fault in not doing so.
11. It is not a good use of public money to investigate a council’s complaint handling where we are not investigating the subject of the complaint. That is the case here.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• we cannot by law investigate matters Mr X has already appealed about;
• it would be reasonable for Mr X to complain to the ICO or take court action on parts of his complaint; and
• we will not separately investigate the way the Council handled contacts and complaints about the matters.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman