Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because the Council cancelled the penalty charge notice in response to Mr X’s challenge and this provides a suitable remedy for the complaint. It is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. He says the officer who issued the PCN input the wrong vehicle registration mark and selected the wrong make and colour for his vehicle. He says this caused him embarrassment and disrupted his holiday and he is unhappy the Council has refused to offer him a symbolic payment.

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. We may also decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
8. I appreciate Mr X went to some trouble and inconvenience to challenge the PCN and that he therefore believes he should be entitled to compensation. But this was no more than would be required for any person to challenge and appeal against a PCN under the statutory appeals process and this process does not provide a mechanism for claiming compensation.
9. The Council cancelled the PCN at an early stage and this provides a suitable remedy for Mr X. Any remaining injustice he may claim from the PCN itself is not significant enough to warrant investigation.
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.
11. Mr X also wants the Council to remove any link between his vehicle registration mark and the PCN under his right to rectification. This relates to Mr X’s rights under the General Data Protection Regulation and associated UK law, which is more appropriate for consideration by the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s agreement to cancel the PCN provides a suitable remedy for the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman