Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his representations against a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. He is unhappy the Council rejected his representations against the PCN and believes it does not have proper guidance or policies in place to deal with such representations. He is also unhappy with the Council’s handling of his ‘freedom of information’ request.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council issued Mr X a PCN for failing to comply with a restriction on motor vehicles. Mr X made representations against the PCN explaining that he was unfamiliar with the area, had been following his ‘sat-nav’ and did not see the signs warning of the restriction due to a parked van. The Council refused to cancel the PCN so Mr X paid it at the discounted rate of £65. He did not appeal because his arguments amounted to mitigation which the appeal body (London Tribunals) could not consider.
7. Mr X says he was baffled by the Council’s decision not to cancel the PCN so he began to request the Council’s guidance, policies and procedures for dealing with representations. He was not happy with the Council’s response and contacted the ICO but they referred him back to the Council to request a review. The Council then provided a document which Mr X says is irrelevant.
8. I will not investigate Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s handling of his freedom of information request because this is a matter for the ICO. I have seen nothing to show it would be unreasonable to expect Mr X to refer the matter to the ICO for a decision and I will not therefore exercise my discretion to consider it further.
9. While Mr X believes the Council’s response shows the Council does not have proper guidance and policies in place for dealing with representations the question for us is whether it dealt with Mr X’s representations properly. I have obtained a copy of Mr X’s representations and the Council’s response and I am satisfied that it properly considered the points Mr X made. The Council was entitled to decline to cancel the PCN and it clearly and properly explained the reasons for its decision. I cannot therefore say the decision was affected by fault.
10. While councils may have guidance about when to cancel PCNs they must consider each case on its merits. Decisions about whether to cancel a PCN in any individual case is a matter of judgement for the officer involved and councils cannot therefore have policies which set out precisely what circumstances must apply in order to cancel a PCN.
11. The Council’s decision not to cancel the PCN also did not cause Mr X significant injustice. Mr X decided to pay the PCN at the discounted rate of £65 and this is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the amount of the penalty charge notice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman