Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice for a bus lane contravention. This is because there is no impact on the complainant because she is not the registered keeper of the car. In addition, the registered keeper could have appealed to the tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, wants the Council to cancel a penalty charge notice (PCN) because she cannot afford to pay and because she has a mental illness.

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 an investigation if we believe the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I read the complaint and the letters the Council sent to the registered keeper of the car. I invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Penalty charge notices

6. The registered keeper of a car is the person who is responsible for either paying a PCN or appealing to the tribunal. If the driver, at the time of the contravention, is not the registered keeper, then they are not liable for the fine.

What happened

7. The Council issued a PCN because its cameras observed a car, registered to Mr Y, in a bus lane when restrictions were in force. Mrs X was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.
8. Mrs X challenged the fine. She explained she had been suffering from a mental illness and thought it was about 7pm. She said her condition was affecting her motivation, sleep and work.
9. The Council rejected her challenge. It said the contravention occurred at 4.45pm and it did not accept that Mrs X could have been confused about the time by over two hours. The Council wrote to Mr Y to say it had rejected the challenge made by Mrs X. It told Mr Y he must pay or that he had 28 days to appeal to the tribunal. The Council says Mr Y has not appealed to the tribunal.
10. Mrs X wants the Council to cancel the PCN.

Assessment

11. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
12. There is no impact on Mrs X. This is because she is not the registered keeper of the car and is not liable to pay the fine.
13. In addition, the Council notified Mr Y of his appeal rights. Mr Y could have appealed to the tribunal if he did not think a bus lane offence had occurred. It is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider disputes about PCNs. The tribunal has the power to cancel a PCN. I do not have that power.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not start an investigation because there is no impact on Mrs X and because Mr Y could have appealed to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman