Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of her representations against a penalty charge notice and requests for evidence relating to the penalty charge notice. This is because it is unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her request for evidence of an alleged bus lane contravention. She says this impacted her ability to appeal against the penalty charge notice (PCN) issued and she felt she had no option but to pay the penalty charge. She says this caused her stress and upset and she wants the Council to reimburse her £80 payment and pay her compensation.

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 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 Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued Ms X a PCN for driving in a bus lane. Ms X says she moved into the bus lane because she saw an ambulance coming up behind her. She challenged the PCN and told the Council her decision-making is affected by a medical condition and that she could not afford to pay the PCN. She asked the Council to take this into account and cancel the PCN.
8. The Council considered Ms X’s challenge but refused the cancel the PCN. It provided a screenshot showing the vehicle being Ms X’s, which was not an ambulance, and said there was no evidence of an emergency vehicle of any sort in the CCTV evidence of the contravention.
9. Ms X then asked for a full copy of the CCTV evidence but says the Council sent her a floppy disc by post which she could not view. She asked the Council to send the footage in a different format but says it failed to do so. She therefore paid the PCN at the discounted rate of £80.
10. The Council has sent me a copy of the CCTV footage it holds of the contravention and this does not show any emergency vehicles behind Ms X’s. I cannot therefore say its decision to refuse her representations was irrational or amounts to fault, or that it should have cancelled the PCN. It is therefore unlikely we could achieve anything for Ms X by investigating her complaint further.
11. Should Ms X wish to pursue her complaint about the Council’s handling of her request for a copy of the CCTV footage she may wish to complain to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman