Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about false information shared by the Council at a Traffic Penalty Tribunal. This is because an investigation from the Ombudsman is unlikely to offer an alternative remedy to the one that has already been provided. Additionally, matters relating to the parking ticket have already been considered at the Tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains an officer within the Council gave other officers misinformation about him, which was then presented at a Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Mr X says the apology from the Council for this does not reflect the time and effort spent clearing his name. Mr X would like the Council to send an internal email to parking staff advising the information was false.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word 'fault' to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered Mr X’s complaint and his correspondence with the Council. I considered Mr X’s comments on a draft of my decision, and the additional information he provided.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X received a parking ticket from the Council for a parking infringement. He appealed the ticket to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
7. Prior to the Tribunal hearing, an officer within the Council shared misinformation about Mr X and the parking offence. This information was submitted to the Tribunal as part of the Council’s evidence. Mr X advised the Tribunal of the misinformation and his appeal was upheld.
8. Mr X complained to the Council about the misinformation it used at the Tribunal.
9. In its response, the Council acknowledged that incorrect information had been given to the Tribunal and apologised to Mr X for the mistake. It also apologised to Mr X for the delay in responding to his complaint.
10. Mr X complains the apology from the Council does not reflect the time and effort spent clearing his name, and the impact the misinformation has had on his professional relationship with Council officers.

Assessment

11. The Council has acknowledged fault in providing misinformation to the Tribunal and provided an apology to Mr X. It is my view that this is the appropriate remedy for Mr X’s complaint. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to recommend an alternative remedy.
12. Additionally, I cannot consider matters which have already been to Tribunal. As the misinformation that Mr X is complaining about came to light at Tribunal, I cannot consider this part of his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation from the Ombudsman is unlikely to offer an alternative remedy to the one that has already been provided. Additionally, part of the complaint has already been considered at the Tribunal.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman