The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the London Tribunals, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive matter.
The complaint
Mr Y complains the Council has wrongly issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Mr Y also complains the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments to provide correspondence in large print and provide him with CCTV evidence via a USB. He complains the Council failed to properly deal with his complaint.
Mr Y says he has been upset and inconvenienced at the Council’s actions.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(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.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued a PCN to Mr Y in January 2022 for stopping his car on a restricted bus stop. The PCN showed two black and white images of the vehicle, one showing it within the bus stop and the other of the registration plate. The PCN also gave details on how Mr Y could obtain colour images and the recording of the alleged contravention through the Council’s website.
Mr Y emailed to the Council to complain and to appeal the PCN. Mr Y included a request for reasonable adjustments within the letter, specifically asking for evidence of the contravention to be provided on a USB with clear visibility and letters to be sent in larger font. He also referred to not having his own dashcam footage from the time of the contravention and referred to signs not being sufficiently visible. He further requested details of the head of the Council’s legal department as part of his complaint.
The Council considered Mr Y’s request for the CCTV to be sent to him on a USB. It decided not to do this, as Mr Y could view the evidence, including the footage, on the Council’s own website to decide whether he wanted to challenge the PCN further. It also considered Mr Y’s appeal at the start of February. It wrote to him, using large font, explaining its rejection of his appeal, referring him to the video footage online. It declined to provide Mr Y with the details of its staff member in response to both the complaint and the appeal and instead referring him to his appeal rights.
After further emails from Mr Y, the Council emailed Mr Y in February explaining the enforcement of the contravention. It also asked Mr Y if he wanted the further correspondence to be resent to him in a larger font. Mr Y did request the documents be sent to him in a larger font, and he confirmed receipt of this from the Council a few days later.
Mr Y then approached us in March 2022.
Analysis The Penalty Charge Notice The law that gives us our powers states that we cannot normally investigate when someone can appeal to a tribunal. As the Council has explained, Mr Y has a right to appeal the validity of the PCN at the London Tribunals.
However, we have discretion to investigate if we consider it is not reasonable to expect someone to resort to their appeal rights. In this case, Mr Y has made us and the Council aware that he requires reasonable adjustments, including large print. Reasonable adjustments can also be made by the London Tribunals where this is needed, so I would not consider this as a reason to not expect Mr Y to use his right of appeal. Consequently, we consider it reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the London Tribunals if he wishes to challenge his liability for the PCN. Consequently, we will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint that the Council issued the PCN.
Failure to make reasonable adjustments The Equality Act places a duty on organisations, such as councils, to make changes to their services to ensure that they are accessible to disabled people as well as everybody else. This is referred to as making “reasonable adjustments”.
In this complaint Mr Y requested two adjustments; for letters be sent to him in large font and for the CCTV footage of the contravention to be sent on a USB.
The Council did send documents to Mr Y in large print and Mr Y confirmed receipt of the documents in an email to the Council in February. The Council decided not to send Mr Y the CCTV footage on a USB, on the basis the footage was available online to anyone with a PCN, on its website. It referred Mr Y to its website on at least two occasions and provided a link for Mr Y to use for this purpose. I have not seen evidence to show Mr Y particularly opposed this suggestion from the Council, that he was unable to access the footage for any reason connected with his disability, nor that he made the Council aware of such a difficulty.
The Council did provide documents in large font and considered Mr Y’s request for the footage to be provided on a USB but provided him with an alternative way for him to access the footage, which Mr Y did not object to. It therefore acted to ensure Mr Y could access its service. Consequently, it is unlikely we would find fault in this complaint, and we will not investigate this complaint.
Complaint handling 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. As we are not investigating the substantive issues in this complaint, we will not investigate how the Council dealt with the complaint, including its decision not to provide staff details for Mr Y’s correspondence about his complaint and appeal.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the London Tribunals. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive matter.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman