Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to refund his payment for a penalty charge notice for driving in a low traffic neighbourhood, contrary to restrictions on vehicular traffic. This is because any fault by the Council did not cause Mr X injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council for driving in a low traffic neighbourhood (LTN). Mr X says the Council failed to properly implement the restrictions for the LTN and he therefore believes the Council should refund his payment for the PCN.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met.
3. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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 considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Had Mr X wished to challenge the PCN it would have been reasonable for him to appeal against it, first to the Council and then to London Tribunals. He did not do so and instead chose to pay the fine. This was his choice and as a result, he lost his right to challenge the PCN further.
8. Mr X says the LTN has recently been found to be unlawful as a result of a technical issue with the process. He therefore believes the Council should refund his payment for the PCN but the Council has refused.
9. But even if there was fault by the Council in the process, Mr X and others had sufficient warning of the Council’s intention to enforce the LTN. The question is therefore whether Mr X and others would have been in a different position had the alleged fault not occurred and I am satisfied they would not.
10. We could not therefore say that any fault by the Council in its implementation of the LTN caused Mr X injustice or that the Council should refund the cost of his PCN and those issued to other motorists for the same contravention.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the alleged fault did not cause Mr X injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman