Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to her incorrectly and then pursued her for this including using bailiffs.
2. Miss Y is unhappy that she had to take time to deal with the matter, when the PCN was issued incorrectly. She is also unhappy that her details have been provided to different organisations relating to the PCN.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered information Miss Y provided, the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and our Guidance on Remedies.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council issued a PCN to Miss Y. However, the vehicle used was not Miss Y’s but a car with a similar registration number. The PCN and related correspondence was sent to Miss Y at her old address. Consequently, Miss Y was unaware of the PCN until bailiffs acting on the Council’s behalf to try to collect the penalty owed, visited her previous address. Miss Y says she was contacted by her previous neighbours about the bailiffs, which she found upsetting.
7. Miss Y says she then became aware that the Council had issued the PCN to her incorrectly. She made the Council aware of the error and the Council cancelled the PCN. She then complained to the Council.
8. The Council responded, apologising for the error. It also agreed to give feedback to the staff member and their manager who had incorrectly identified the vehicle registration to prevent the problem from reoccurring. Miss Y was unhappy with the council’s response as she wanted to receive compensation for the inconvenience and trouble caused by the Council’s error. She also said she was unhappy the Council had provided her details to other organisations, such as the bailiffs, without justification. She approached us in September.

Analysis

9. Miss Y’s injustice is the upset caused and inconvenience of dealing with the problem, caused by the Council’s error. The Council has acted upon becoming aware of the mistake to cancel the PCN, apologise and feedback to its staff to prevent recurrence of the issue. While Miss Y may feel strongly, we would consider this as a suitable remedy to the injustice Miss Y had. Consequently, we are satisfied with the Council’s action and will not investigate this complaint further.
10. Miss Y has also said she has concerns about her data having been provided to third parties, such as the bailiffs. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. As the Information Commissioner can make reasonable adjustments and is a free service, I would consider it reasonable for Miss Y to be expected to approach them as the body set up for such concerns to be considered. I therefore do not consider there to be sufficiently good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate this.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman