Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information rights as this is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office. Mr X’s request for costs incurred in challenging a penalty charge notice to be refunded would not provide grounds for our further action.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Transport for London (TfL) has failed to provide information he has requested about penalty charge notices (PCNs) it has issued and will not refund his costs for challenging a PCN it issued to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection/information rights. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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 we there is insufficient injustice to warrant our further action (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent regulator in respect of information rights and is best placed to respond to the concerns Mr X raises about TfL’s response to his request for information.
7. It is inevitable that someone challenging a PCN will be put to some time and trouble, and this is not something we would generally seek a financial remedy for. Mr X says he also incurred minor postage and photocopying costs. This does not represent a level of injustice that would justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is best dealt with by the ICO and the injustice he describes is not sufficient to justify our further action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman