Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the charge for entering the Council’s Clean Air Zone. This is because there is not significant enough of an injustice to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains that the Council has not waived the charge for Miss Y entering its Clean Air Zone (CAZ) while following a police diversion. She is also unhappy with the Council’s handling of her complaint.
2. Miss Y feels it is unfair that she has had to pay the £8 and says she was unable to pay for her medication because of the money spent on the charge.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Miss Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss Y says she was travelling in her car in March 2022. She says she was due to travel outside of the area’s CAZ, but then, due to a police incident, had to continue her journey through the CAZ. Miss Y then paid the charge for entering the CAZ, which is £8 per day as her vehicle was not compliant with the emission levels required for travelling without payment.
7. Miss Y complained to the Council about needing to pay the charge. The Council responded in March, denying any fault. It said Miss Y could have opted not to pay the charge and appeal the charge if she had received a Penalty Charge Notice through the associated appeals process. Miss Y then approached us in April.

Analysis

8. Miss Y’s alleged injustice is the upset of having to pay the charge and the cost of the charge itself, amounting to £8. Miss Y says she is on a low income and the cost of the charge meant that she was unable to afford her monthly medication.
9. While this may have caused Miss Y some difficulty, the cost of £8 is not a significant enough injustice to warrant our investigation. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
10. As we are not investigating the substantive issue, we will not investigate how the Council considered Miss Y’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not significant enough of an injustice to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman