Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his personal data or its enforcement of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). Complaints about data handling are better considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Mr X had a right of appeal for the PCNs, and it would have been reasonable for him to use that.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council collected and used his personal data inappropriately when enforcement agents contacted him about unpaid Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). He also says the Council should have paused enforcement action while he was following its complaints process. Mr X says these events have had a significant impact on his wellbeing, causing him distress and anxiety.

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 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 
4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner. 
5. We cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court or use 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 go to court or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(6)(a) and (c), as amended)
6. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for the rest of England. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), part of the county court, considers applications to set the PCN process back where there has been procedural fault.
7. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X complained the Council got and used his personal data inappropriately when it told enforcement agents to recover outstanding Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). The Council responded to his complaints and explained how and why it had got and used his data. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) deals with enforcing data protection legislation and investigating complaints about handling personal information. If Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response, it would have been reasonable for him to complain to the ICO, which is better placed to consider and decide such matters.
10. Mr X also complained about the PCNs issued to him. However, there is a statutory appeal process for PCNs. A motorist can challenge a PCN, make formal representations and, if necessary, go through the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). In responding to Mr X’s complaint, the Council explained how he could challenge the PCNs, including how to put in a late witness statement. As this alternative remedy was available, it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use it. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
11. Mr X says the Council failed to consider his disclosed conditions and did not make reasonable adjustments for him. The Council explained that it considered the information Mr X provided as part of its decision-making and case management. It also explained how it considers requests for reasonable adjustments and the adjustments it may make. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s disclosed conditions or his need for reasonable adjustments.
12. Mr X is also unhappy with the Council’s complaint handling. It is not proportionate for us to investigate any ancillary matters if we are not investigating the substantive parts of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the ICO is better placed to consider and decide complaints about data protection, and there he had a right of appeal for the PCNs that it would have been reasonable for him to use.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman