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 Miss Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.
The complaint
Miss Y complained the Council failed to allow her to appeal after she made it aware she did not receive a Notice to Owner (NtO) letter about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). It also wrote to her at an old address. She also complained the Council ignored two subject access requests.
Miss Y says this caused her distress and worry.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) 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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Miss Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued a PCN to Miss Y’s vehicle in October 2021. Miss Y moved in October to a new address. The Council then sent a NtO to Miss Y in December. Miss Y says this was not received as it was sent to the old address. Miss Y says as she did not receive the NtO, she was unable to appeal the PCN. She then provided her new address as the registered keeper of the vehicle through her V5C logbook to the DVLA in January 2022.
Miss Y complained to the Council at the start of March after she had received a charge certificate for the penalty debt. She said she had contacted the Council at the end of January, asking if it had upheld the PCN. She said it had then sent a letter to her old address in February saying she no longer had a formal right to appeal. Miss Y also made a subject access request within the email.
The Council responded to the complaint in April, denying fault and providing Miss Y with details of how to appeal the charge certificate. The Council resent its response to Miss Y in July, following which Miss Y contacted us.
Analysis Miss Y has a right to submit a late witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), asking it to remove the charge certificate for the PCN. If the TEC accepts Miss Y’s application it can reinstate Miss Y’s right of appeal against the PCN to the London Tribunals.
This is often free in the initial stages and reasonable adjustments can be made where necessary for access to the service.
Consequently, as Miss Y has not provided any other reason why she cannot, it is reasonable to expect her to use her right to appeal. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
Further, there is no charge for making a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (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 as it has been set up for this purpose. I consider that to be the case here and Miss Y should therefore approach the ICO about her concerns relating to her subject access request.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to appeal to the TEC and the London Tribunals for the PCN and refer her complaint about data protection to the ICO.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman