Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled a Fixed Penalty Notice. The court was better placed to decide if Mr X had committed an offence.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly issued him a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) and did not consider his appeal properly. Mr X says the Council did not provide him with a copy of the CCTV footage from the incident. Mr X also complains of poor communication and complaint handling.

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 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. The Information Commissioner's Office 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.
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. A council may issue a FPN if it believes someone has committed an offence. By paying the penalty in time, further action is prevented and liability is cleared. If someone wishes to dispute the offence, they should wait to be summoned to court and defend themselves during the proceedings.
8. The Council issued Mr X a FPN for reckless behaviour in a vehicle. Mr X appealed to the Council saying he was not driving recklessly.
9. The Council considered Mr X’s appeal including having a police officer review the CCTV footage of the incident. The police officer agreed Mr X was driving recklessly. The Council rejected Mr X’s appeal and explained why it believed the offence had occurred. Mr X then paid the penalty.
10. Had Mr X wished to dispute the offence, he could have waited for the matter to be brought to court and defended himself in the proceedings. Unlike the Ombudsman, the court can decide if Mr X had committed an offence or not. The court was best placed to consider these matters and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable from investigation by the Ombudsman.
11. Mr X also complains the Council did not give him with a copy of the CCTV footage of the incident. The Council say Mr X was given the opportunity to view the footage at the police station. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the organisation best placed to consider complaints about how organisations handle people’s data and respond to information requests. If Mr X would like to complain about the Council’s response to his request for information, it would be reasonable for him to raise this with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
12. Mr X also complains of poor communication and complaint handling. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint because it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling when we are not looking at the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council acted in handling his Fixed Penalty Notice. The court was better placed to decide if Mr X had committed an offence.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman