Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council mishandled his challenge to a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). He says the Council failed to properly consider his medical evidence, handled his complaint poorly, gave a misleading impression that it could review the PCN after payment, and delayed its response to his Subject Access Request. He seeks an investigation, redress, and service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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 and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for entering a bus lane in September 2024. He paid the penalty charge of £35 in October 2024; after making payment, Mr X contacted the Council to challenge the PCN.
9. The Council advised that, because payment had been made, the case was closed and no further representations could be considered.
10. Several months later, Mr X contacted the Council again and provided medical evidence in mitigation. The Council maintained that the case remained closed and could not be reconsidered.
11. Mr X then submitted a formal complaint and made a Subject Access Request (SAR).
12. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. We will not investigate any matters relating to the issue of the PCN itself. That is because we would not consider the charge of £35 a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.
13. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to consider his medical condition under the Equality Act, or that it showed limited understanding and did not apply reasonable adjustments. The Council in its response had regard to its Equality Act duties by acknowledging Mr X’s disability, reviewing the medical evidence, and considering reasonable adjustments. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
14. With regards to the delays in responding to Mr X’s SAR request, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the appropriate body to consider complaints about this, and it would be reasonable for Mr X to pursue this with them.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman