Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council threatened court action for non-payment of two penalty charge notices as the Council’s agreement to refund her payment of £70 provides a suitable remedy for the issue. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an alleged data breach as it would be reasonable for her to take the matter to the Information Commissioner and seek a remedy at court.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council threatened court action for non-payment of two penalty charge notices (PCNs) she had already paid and then breached the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by sending an email to her daughter marked “FAO [Mrs X]”.

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 Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Although the Council wrote to Mrs X threatening to escalate the PCNs and take court action to recover payment, it did not take the matter to court. It confirms it received Mrs X’s payment for £70 in settlement of the PCNs and has now agreed to refund this amount as a gesture of goodwill. The Council’s agreement to refund the payment is a suitable remedy for this issue and it is therefore unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more for Mrs X.
8. While Mrs X is concerned the Council breached the GDPR by sending her personal information to her daughter, this is not a matter we would investigate. The Information Commissioner is better placed to decide if the actions amounted to a breach of the GDPR and, if so, whether the Council is responsible for it. If Mrs X wishes to claim damages it would be reasonable for her to do so at court.
9. Mrs X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her 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

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman