Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council issued a penalty charge notice for a driving contravention. The Council has reduced the fine and investigation is not likely to achieve more. We cannot investigate the issuing of the penalty charge notice because Ms X appealed to the London Tribunals adjudicator.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council issued a penalty charge notice (PCN) when a vehicle she owns passed a sign, prohibiting its entry to that area, by less than 10 centimetres. Ms X says the Tribunal adjudicator refused her appeal but told her the Council would write to her about how to pay or further challenge. Ms X says the Council did not do so but sent a charge notice increasing the fine from £130 to £203. Ms X says when she contacted the Council about payment an officer agreed the penalty had been issued unfairly. She wants the Council to cancel the PCN and change its practice so it issues notices fairly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered Ms X’s information and discussed the complaint with her by telephone.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I will not investigate because we cannot deal with most of the complaint and cannot achieve what Ms X wants for the following reasons:
7. Ms X tells me her MP wrote to the Council on her behalf. The Council reduced the fine to £130 which was the amount owed after the Tribunal. Ms X has paid the fine. We are not likely to achieve more.
8. We cannot say the Council acted unfairly when issuing the PCN. The Ombudsman cannot investigate whether the PCN was properly issued including whether signs were adequate. Ms X used her right of appeal to the tribunal which places the matter outside our jurisdiction (see paragraphs 3 and 4). The adjudicator found the driving contravention occurred and did not quash the PCN.
9. The Council refused Ms X’s earlier representation against the PCN. Ms X tells me the Council declined to cancel the PCN because the contravention had taken place and the ticket was properly issued. Ms X doubts whether the contravention occurred or if it did says it was minor. There is insufficient evidence of Council fault and no indication of special circumstances to justify the Council quashing the ticket.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council issued a penalty charge notice for a driving contravention. The Council has reduced the fine and investigation is not likely to achieve more. We cannot investigate the issuing of the penalty charge notice because Ms X appealed to the London Tribunals adjudicator.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman