Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Clean Air Zone because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council had used guidance signs for the local airport to encourage people into the area’s Clean Air Zone (CAZ), costing him £9.
2. Mr Y feels he has been unfairly charged and says he would not have entered the CAZ if he had not been following signs to get to the airport.

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 was travelling to the airport in the Council’s area and was following signs to direct him. Mr Y says he then entered the CAZ, which he did not wish to do, as a result of following the signs. He then paid the £9 fee for entering the CAZ. He feels there was a lack of signage in the area and it is unfair that he had to enter the CAZ in order to follow the signs. He complained to the Council in February 2023. The Council denied fault, saying there were signs in advance of entering the CAZ and on entry. Mr Y approached us in March.

Analysis

6. It is for a driver to prepare for a journey, including deciding upon a route. If Mr Y did not wish to enter a CAZ, and incur a fee as a result, it is for him to have decided either on an alternative route or on an alternative means of transport. In this case, Mr Y used a route which led to him entering the CAZ, and incurred the fee, which he paid. It is unlikely we would find the Council at fault.
7. The Council’s response shows that there are signs leading up to the CAZ and on entrance to it. If this were not the case, Mr Y could have appealed a Penalty Charge Notice, which would have been issued if he had not chosen to pay, on the basis that the contravention had not occurred due to a lack of signage. However, as Mr Y chose instead to pay the fee, avoiding making such an appeal for why he felt he should not pay, it is unlikely we would find the Council at fault, as in paying Mr Y has agreed that the fee was due.
8. For the reasons above we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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