The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice for a moving traffic contravention. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council has taken satisfactory action to address the complaint, and it is reasonable to expect the complainant to contact the Information Commissioner with any data protection concerns.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss X, says the Council and its enforcement agents sent enforcement documents relating to a penalty charge notice (PCN) to the wrong address, and failed to respond to her associated questions and queries about the matter.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
The courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, reference or review or remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916) We may also decide not to start an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a Council has already taken in response to a complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended) And we normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) 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 provided by Miss X and the Council. The information included their correspondence, a copy of the Traffic Enforcement Centre’s (TEC) decision on Miss X’s out-of-time statutory declaration, and a chronology of the enforcement/complaint process in this case.
I also considered our Assessment Code.
Summary of what happened The Council issued a PCN to Miss X in September 2021. It sent this, and subsequent enforcement documents, to the address provided by the DVLA. This was Miss X’s old address.
I understand Miss X became aware of the enforcement action in January 2022 and contacted the Council. She subsequently applied to the TEC to submit an out-of-time statutory declaration to the TEC, but this was refused in May 2022.
Miss X contacted the Council again with various questions/enquiries. It explained the enforcement documents had been sent to her old address as that was the address provided by the DVLA. And as the TEC had refused her application to file a late statutory declaration, she should now contact the enforcement agents for confirmation of the outstanding debt and how to pay.
Upon reviewing Miss X’s subsequent complaint, the Council decided to cancel the PCN and recall the debt from the enforcement agents as, although it believed the contravention had occurred, the CCTV footage/photos of the incident were partly obscured.
My assessment
The law says that where someone has pursued court action about a matter, we cannot then investigate a complaint about it. So, we cannot investigate any parts of the complaint about the enforcement of the PCN, as Miss X used her right of appeal to the TEC, which is part of Northampton County Court.
I appreciate Miss X also attempted to correspond with the Council about the validity of the PCN and the associated enforcement process, and that she wanted answers to various questions and queries.
But the Council enforces moving traffic contraventions and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
Councils and motorists must follow these procedures. Therefore, once the TEC had refused her late statutory declaration, there was no requirement for the Council to enter into discussions with Miss X about the PCN or the enforcement process, and it correctly directed her to its enforcement agents.
Considering all the above, I am satisfied the Council’s subsequent decision to exercise its discretion to cancel the PCN and recall the debt from the enforcement agents, was a reasonable way to address the complaint. With reference to paragraph 4, the Ombudsman will not pursue this part of the complaint either.
And, with reference to paragraph 5, if Miss X has concerns about how her personal information has been handled by the Council, then it is reasonable to expect her to contact the ICO. It is the UK’s independent authority on data protection matters.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the Council has already taken satisfactory action to address the complaint, and it is reasonable to expect her to contact the ICO with any data protection concerns.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman