Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains that the Council’s Clean Air Zone charges are unfair after she received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Mrs Y says she is unhappy that the 14 days, in which she could pay a reduced amount, was not paused while she appealed the PCN and feels the amount of the fine was disproportionate for the time spent in the zone and for her circumstances.
2. Mrs Y says this has caused her upset, inconvenience and financial strain.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mrs Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In 2021 the Council introduced a Clean Air Zone (CAZ) under a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). The TRO enabled the Council to charge people for using the road within the CAZ in vehicles which did not meet emission requirements.
6. Those who use roads within the CAZ and do not pay the charge are issued with a PCN by the Council. The PCN tells the driver they must pay a fine of £120 within 28 days or appeal. If the fine is paid within the first 14 days, the fine is reduced to £60. This is a fixed amount. After the 14 days, the full amount of the charge (£120) is payable.
7. In October Mrs Y drove into the CAZ by mistake and received a PCN. She appeal but was concerned that if she was not successful, she did not want to pay the increased amount of £120. As the Council did not consider the appeal within the 14 days, Mrs Y paid the £60 fine.
8. Mrs Y feels the 14-day period should have been paused to allow time for her appeal to be considered. She feels it is unfair the fine is a fixed amount which does not account for the time she spent in the CAZ or her income.

Analysis

9. Councils can make Traffic Regulation Orders to help control traffic and parking within their areas. The Council’s TRO for the CAZ sets out its fixed penalty charge for non-payment of the charge for use of the roads within the zone.
10. The TRO also explains the discounted 14-day period. This is without reference to the appeals process, which means that the Council are not obliged under the order to ‘stop the clock’ as Mrs Y has suggested to allow time for appeals. This is in common with several other schemes across the country.
11. As the Council have acted in accordance with the TRO, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation. While Mrs Y may feel strongly about the issue, we must use public money carefully, so we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman