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.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for driving in a Clean Air Zone (CAZ) without paying the daily charge. Mr Y says he did not see the signs as he was concentrating on directions as a visitor to the area.
2. Mr Y says he paid the fine after it increased to £120 so it would not increase further. He feels that while there may have been local publicity, as he is not local to the area, so it is unfair he has been charged when he was unaware of the charge to enter the zone.

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 information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y entered the Council’s CAZ in October 2021. He says he was busy looking at directions and keeping within the speed limits and did not see signage about the CAZ at the time. Consequently, he drove through the CAZ without paying the £8 daily charge for doing so. Mr Y then received a PCN to his home address. The amount charged for the PCN was initially £60 for payment made within 14 days but would increase to £120 after this point. Mr Y paid the PCN after it had increased to £120.
6. Mr Y then complained to the Council. He said he had not seen signs advertising the CAZ and had been unaware of the charge he was supposed to pay.
7. The Council responded in January 2022. It said having reviewed the signage, drivers should have passed at least two signs warning them of the CAZ before reaching the boundary of the zone and were given alternative routes if they did not want to pay the charge. It then referred Mr Y back to the original PCN for details of how he could appeal it if he wished but did not find fault, either with signage or its issuing of the PCN. It also referred Mr Y to us. Mr Y approached us in January 2021.

Analysis

8. The Council have considered Mr Y’s complaint and explained how it launched the CAZ in its first few weeks and publicised it locally. While Mr Y does not live in the area, he was driving in the area, resulting in him receiving a PCN. The Council’s response indicates it has reviewed the signage around the CAZ and explained its use of signage, with at least two signs being passed before drivers enter the CAZ.
9. The Council has also referred Mr Y to his right to appeal the PCN if he wishes. While Mr Y may want a more detailed explanation of the national publicity of the CAZ, the Council has referred Mr Y to the third-party organisation who led this which is part of central government and agreed to pass Mr Y’s comments on to this organisation. Consequently, as the Council was not responsible for the wider national publicity, Mr Y would need to contact the third party if he remains unhappy or wants more information.
10. Therefore, as the Council properly considered Mr Y’s complaint, and provided a suitable explanation to him, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr 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