Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and there is another body better placed to consider her complaint about the Freedom of Information request.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council:
• Delayed responding to her representations against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), leading to the reduced payment expiring and the penalty amount increasing, which Miss Y felt penalised her for making representations;
• Sent correspondence which Miss Y found confusing and unfairly pressurised her into paying the penalty to stop the amount increasing, which Miss Y says is in breach of the Council’s equality duty to make communications accessible for disabled people;
• Dismissed her view that the signage for the Clean Air Zone (CAZ) was unclear and did not provide enough warning before entering the CAZ; and
• Did not respond to her Freedom of Information (FOI) request and sent her a faulty link to the Ombudsman.
2. Miss Y says she has spent £60 more than she would have for the penalty because she felt pressured into paying, causing her worry and upset and the lack of response to the FOI made her feel ignored.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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 Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
6. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information Miss Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss Y complained the Council did not respond to her representations against the PCN before the amount increased from £60 to £120. She says she paid the penalty because she was concerned about the increasing cost, which if she had not paid would then have increased to £180.
9. Councils must consider representations as quickly as possible but have up to 56 days to respond. This does mean that the amount can increase while drivers wait for a response. The process is a statutory process and Council’s must follow this process and the timings set out within it. While Miss Y may have been upset that the amount had increased, as the Council was following the process set out for it, including the penalty increases, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint. We will not investigate.
10. Miss Y says the correspondence the Council sent to her about the PCN was confusing and she felt unfairly pressured into paying the PCN, as the letters were not, in her view, accessible. Miss Y says this did not meet the Council’s equality duty. While Miss Y did not feel the letter was clear and accessible, the information provided explained the steps in the process the Council would follow depending on Miss Y’s response to the PCN correspondence. It gave her options of whether to pay or to appeal the PCN, either with the Council or with the Tribunal. Miss Y was able to sufficiently understand the letters to be able to make representations to the Council against the PCN and to then be able to pay the PCN to prevent the amount increasing. As Miss Y was able to do this, there is not enough evidence that the information provided was so inaccessible that she was unable to engage with the process. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
11. Miss Y is also unhappy that the Council did not accept her representations about her view that there is a lack of signage which was sufficiently clear for her to be able to avoid the CAZ. The Council can disagree and reject Miss Y’s representations. It is for Miss Y as the driver and recipient of the PCN to challenge this with the Traffic Penalty Tribunal if she disagrees. This is in line with the process for such PCNs that the Council can reject representations. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
12. Miss Y has complained the Council failed to respond to her FOI request. The ICO is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation. This includes when information is not released in response to requests.
13. There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO, and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use. Where someone has a complaint about data protection, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the ICO. This is because the ICO is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints. I consider that to be the case here and Miss Y should therefore approach the ICO about her concerns.
14. As we are not investigating the substantive issue of this complaint, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council responded to the complaint, including whether it provided an incomplete link to our website. We will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and there is another body better placed to consider her complaint about the Freedom of Information request.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman