Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of a council officer in connection with his appeal against a penalty charge notice. This is because Mr X alleges the officer committed an offence and this is a matter for the police. The injustice Mr X claims stems from the issue of the penalty charge notice and his efforts to appeal against it and London Tribunals has considered this as part of his appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains a council officer recorded a video while driving to present as evidence in his appeal against a penalty charge notice (PCN). He says the officer’s actions were illegal and he believes the Council should take disciplinary action against them. He is unhappy he went to time and trouble to prepare his appeal as London Tribunals rejected his application for costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• 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))

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
6. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. It is not for us to decide if the council officer committed an offence; this is a matter for the police. We also cannot look at any complaint about whether the Council should have or did take appropriate disciplinary action against the officer. This is because it concerns a personnel issue.
9. While Mr X is clearly outraged by the council officer’s actions they did not cause him significant injustice for which we could recommend a remedy. This is because his injustice stems from the issue of the PCN and the time and trouble he spent to appeal against it. Mr X applied to London Tribunals for costs as part of his appeal and if he is not happy with its decision to reject his application he should contact them to see how he may challenge it.
10. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X. Mr X’s concerns about the council officer’s actions are a matter for the police and we cannot recommend a remedy for Mr X’s time and trouble in appealing against the PCN.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman