Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued to his son Mr Y as it would have been reasonable for him to appeal. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr Y’s challenge to the penalty charge notice as it is unlikely we would find fault causing Mr Y significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council asked to see Mr Y’s medical records when considering his challenge to a penalty charge notice (PCN). He believes the request was unreasonable and that the Council mistreated his son, leaving him no option but to pay the PCN. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint and his son’s personal data.

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 we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (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 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 reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. This complaint stems from the Council’s issue of a PCN to Mr Y. Mr X is unhappy with the way the Council dealt with Mr Y’s challenge and his complaint.

Process

8. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for parking contraventions and handling appeals against them. When a council issues a PCN the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal; appeals at this stage are known as ‘informal challenges’.
9. If the motorist submits an informal challenge to a PCN and the Council decides not to accept them, it will write to the motorist and explain why. If the motorist accepts the Council’s reasons they may pay the PCN; if not, they may wait for a ‘notice to owner’. This provides a further opportunity for the owner of the vehicle to pay the charge or make ‘formal representations’ against the PCN. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Mr Y’s case

10. The Council issued Mr Y a PCN for a parking contravention in 2020. Mr Y wrote to the Council to challenge the PCN at the first stage of the process, explaining he was “involved in a medical emergency… and was transported in an Ambulance...”
11. The Council declined to cancel the PCN as it had seen no evidence of the medical emergency referred to. It asked Mr X to provide, within 14 days, a copy of a hospital discharge letter or doctor’s letter so that it could reconsider the matter. It also set out his other options to pay the PCN at the discounted rate of £25 or wait for the notice to owner to appeal further.
12. Mr Y paid the PCN and Mr X later complained on his behalf. He says Mr Y suffered a mental health emergency and that it was unreasonable for the Council to ask for evidence, especially within such a short timeframe.
13. It is not for us to decide disputes over the validity of PCNs. This is the role of the appeals process and I have seen nothing to suggest it would not have been reasonable for Mr Y/Mr X to use the process in this case. We have therefore considered whether there is evidence to show the Council acted with fault, and whether its actions caused Mr Y significant injustice warranting further investigation.
14. It is unlikely we would say it was fault for the Council to issue a PCN as Mr Y’s vehicle was parked in a council car park without a valid ticket. It was also not at fault for asking Mr Y to provide evidence in support of his challenge. Mr X believes this was insensitive but Mr Y did not give a full account of what happened or explain that the incident related to his mental health; it could not therefore have known this.
15. It was open for Mr Y to contact the Council once he received its letter to explain what had happened further, to provide evidence of the incident and/or to ask the Council to correspond with Mr X on his behalf. He may also have waited for the notice to owner to appeal further, as set out clearly in its response. He chose instead to pay the PCN and this closed the case.
16. We cannot attribute Mr Y’s decision to pay the PCN, rather than appeal, to any fault by the Council and the amount he paid (£25) is not a significant enough injustice to warrant our continued involvement in this matter.
17. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.
18. Mr X says he provided sensitive personal information about his son at the Council’s request and the Council has failed to explain how it would use or store this information. He says he has reported this matter to the ICO and the ICO is better placed to decide whether the Council’s actions breached the General Data Protection Regulations and, if it has, direct the Council about what it must do to comply.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr Y to appeal against the PCN and it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman