Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about inadequate signage. Mr X’s injustice lies in a penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London and if he disputed this it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains signs put up by Transport for London (TfL) to warn of parking restrictions are not clear. Mr X parked in a loading bay and TfL issued him a penalty charge notice (PCN).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, shared my draft decision with him and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. TfL issued Mr X a PCN for parking in a loading bay in November 2019. Mr X says he mistook the loading bay for a one-hour parking space and complains the signs warning of the parking restriction are unclear.
8. Rather than appealing against the PCN, Mr X complained to TfL about its signs. He did not receive a response so complained again on two further occasions. But TfL has not responded to his complaints.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Our role is to remedy injustice caused by fault and in this case Mr X’s injustice lies in the PCN issued by TfL. If Mr X disputed the PCN, including for reasons of inadequate signage, it would have been reasonable for him to appeal; the complaints process is not intended to deal with such matters.
10. While it would have been good practice for TfL to respond Mr X’s complaints, even if just to confirm they did not fall under its complaints policy, we will not investigate this issue separately. This is because it does not cause Mr X significant injustice separate from the issue of the PCN.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the substantive issue concerns the issue of a PCN and if Mr X disputed the PCN it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman