Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about road signs and markings. Mr X could reasonably have used his right of appeal against the moving traffic penalty he received. We cannot reasonably achieve more about Mr X’s parking penalty. It is more appropriate for the Information Commissioner to consider the data protection matters. It would be disproportionate for us to investigate the Council’s alleged failure to correct the defective signs and lines.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council: enforces for moving traffic and parking matters where the relevant road signs and lines are in disrepair or incorrect; breached his data protection and human rights; and has still not corrected the defective signs and lines despite saying it would do so.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal, or could have appealed, 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 appeal or to have appealed while they had the right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (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 complains the Council took enforcement action for traffic and parking breaches in places where the road signs and lines breached the law and statutory guidance. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to police or oversee councils’ activities generally. We consider complaints from individuals. In considering whether we have the legal power to investigate a complaint, and, if so, whether we should investigate it, a key point is how the Council’s actions affected the person complaining to us. Here, the main direct result for Mr X of the Council’s enforcement was that he received penalty charges for an alleged moving traffic contravention and an alleged parking contravention.
1. Alleged moving traffic contravention – Mr X had the right to appeal to London Tribunals on certain grounds, one of which was that the alleged contravention did not take place. That is the relevant appeal ground where the road markings and signs were allegedly inadequate. Therefore, the restriction in paragraph 2 applies. The law expressly provides this route for such matters, so we normally expect people to use it. The procedure is straightforward and free. The Tribunal has the relevant expertise to decide the lawfulness of signs and lines. If it sees fit, it can make a binding decision overturning a penalty charge, which the Ombudsman cannot. Overall, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed when he had the right.
2. Alleged parking contravention - When Mr X made representations (the first stage of challenging a penalty charge), the Council agreed it should not have issued this and it cancelled the charge. We cannot reasonably achieve more than that here. Mr X wants ‘compensation.’ Compensation for damages is a matter for the courts, not the Ombudsman. Sometimes, we might ask a Council to make a symbolic payment. However, this is not warranted here. The representation and appeal procedure exists to try to correct errors that the law expects will sometimes happen. That system worked here. It would be disproportionate for us to seek more.
9. Mr X says the Council broke data protection legislation, including in how it processed and retained his personal data. The Information Commissioner has the expertise and power to rule on such matters. I understand Mr X contacted the Information Commissioner. It is not appropriate for us to duplicate, or to seek to go beyond, the Information Commissioner’s actions on these matters. So there is no good reason for us to investigate this point.
10. Mr X says the Council has not put right the defects with the road signs and lines, despite saying it would. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to regulate the Council’s actions generally here. It is speculative whether any failure to correct signs or lines might result in Mr X receiving another penalty charge that he would consider unjustified. In that event, Mr X would have an appeal right. The same would apply to any other motorist receiving a penalty charge in those circumstances. It would therefore be disproportionate for us to take further action on this point.
11. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Human Rights Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. However, we will not necessarily do this in every case. I have set out above why I will not investigate the Council’s actions on the road markings, signs, enforcement action and data protection. In that context, it would be disproportionate to investigate whether the Council had adequate regard to Mr X’s human rights on those points. If Mr X wants a definitive ruling on whether the Council breached his human rights, only the courts could provide that.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. Mr X could reasonably have used his appeal right against the moving traffic penalty. We could not reasonably achieve more about the parking penalty. It is more appropriate for the Information Commissioner to consider the data protection matters. It would be disproportionate for us to investigate the Council’s alleged failure to date to correct the defective signs and lines.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman