The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge notices because it is reasonable to expect Ms Y to approach the ICO, the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals about the complaints raised.
The complaint
Ms Y complained the Authority did not accept her representations against three Penalty Charge Notices (PCNS) and increased the penalties despite her having previously tried to pay. Ms Y also complained the Authority has ignored her Freedom of Information (FOI) and Subject Access Requests (SARs).
Ms Y says this has caused her upset and worry.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) 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.
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 has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Ms Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Authority issued three PCNs to a car hirer company for contraventions which occurred while Ms Y was driving a hire car. The hire car company did not initially inform Ms Y of the PCNs, but did make representations. The company explained that Ms Y had hired the car and was therefore responsible for the PCNs. Ms Y initially tried to make payment for the PCNs at the start of March 2024.
The Authority then reissued the PCNs to Ms Y in later March 2024 and refunded the amount Ms Y had already paid back to Ms Y in line with its policy.
Ms Y says two of the penalties are at an increased rate of £160 each and the other at £80. She is seeking for the amounts on the PCNs to be reduced to the original level of £80 (£240) which is the amount she originally tried to pay.
Analysis Ms Y has a right to appeal the PCNs further to the London Tribunals if she wishes.
The London Tribunals can consider how the Council dealt with Ms Y’s appeal, and whether it followed the correct process in considering her representations. If it finds that it did not consider her representations properly, it can then consider the issues Ms Y has raised as the reasons why the PCN is either invalid or should not be enforced.
Usually, a person must make an appeal to the tribunal within 28 days of a Notice of Rejection to representations being issued. Ms Y may therefore need to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre once a charge certificate is issued by the Council to seek permission to appeal to the London Tribunals after the deadline if this has already passed. She will need to explain in a late statutory declaration why she has been unable to appeal previously. She may also wish to write to the Authority to confirm that it will not accept any representations she makes at this stage as this will confirm where she is in the process for each PCN.
The London Tribunals and the Traffic Enforcement Centre is free in the initial stages and can make reasonable adjustments if necessary. I would therefore consider it reasonable for Ms Y to use her right of appeal and we will not investigate the complaint about the PCNs.
Ms Y has also complained about the lack of responses to her FOI and SARs. As explained in paragraph four, 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’s Office. However, we may decide to investigate if there are good reasons.
The ICO is the body set up to deal with complaints of this nature and is free and can make reasonable adjustments if necessary, so I would, in the absence of any reason not to, consider it reasonable to expect Ms Y to complain to the ICO. We will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Ms Y to approach the ICO, the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals about the complaints raised.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman