Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an issue relating to the Council’s Clean Air Zone. This is because Mr B has not suffered a significant personal injustice and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal is in the best position to decide complaints about traffic restriction signage.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council has created a ‘trap’ for motorists by introducing a traffic restriction which means motorists cannot access part of the city, which is outside the Council’s Clean Air Zone, without driving through the Clean Air Zone.
2. Mr B says the signage in this area is misleading which has resulted in thousands of motorists being issued with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for driving in the Clean Air Zone.
3. Mr B also complains the Council has: delayed responding to his complaint; provided him with misinformation; and, treated him with contempt.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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.
7. 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)
8. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council, and information on the Council’s website. I have also viewed the area on Google Maps.
10. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

11. We will not investigate the Council’s decision to introduce this traffic restriction. The Council is aware this restriction means a small area, which is not within the Clean Air Zone, can now only be accessed via the Clean Air Zone. The Council has considered different options to avoid this situation but ultimately has decided the traffic restriction is in the most suitable location.
12. We would normally expect a person to challenge the creation of a Traffic Regulation Order at the High Court. But, in any case the information does not suggest the presence of this traffic restriction has caused Mr B a personal and significant injustice which would justify an investigation. And, there are other areas of the city which are close to the boundary of the Clean Air Zone but cannot be accessed without travelling through the Clean Air Zone.
13. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal is in the best position to decide if there is sufficient signage in place to warn motorists of traffic restrictions including Clean Air Zones. Mr B and any other motorist issued with a PCN for driving in the Clean Air Zone may put in an appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal if they consider signage in the area is misleading.
14. We would not normally investigate an organisation’s handling of a complaint if we are not investigating the main issue complained about. The Council’s final response to Mr B’s complaint clearly sets out the Council’s position and is written in an appropriate tone. An investigation solely into the Council’s handling of Mr B’s correspondence and complaint would not be a good use of our limited resources or achieve a meaningful outcome for Mr B.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint because Mr B has not suffered a significant personal injustice and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal is in the best position to decide appeals about the signage in this location. An investigation solely into the Council’s handling of Mr B’s correspondence is not justified.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman