Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Clean Air Zone in the Council’s area because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and Mr Y has not suffered any injustice due to the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council signage for its Clean Air Zone (CAZ) was insufficient and its website was unavailable, so he was unable to confirm whether his vehicle was subject to a charge.
2. Mr Y feels this led to him paying the charge unfairly when he would have avoided the area if he had been able to.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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 drove in the Council’s area in February 2023. Mr Y says he was previously unaware of the Council’s CAZ. Mr Y feels the signage for the CAZ was insufficient to give him sufficient warning of the zone or a route to avoid the zone if he wished. Mr Y says he then went on the CAZ website to check whether he needed to pay the CAZ, but this was unavailable due to maintenance. He therefore paid the charge of £9 to avoid receiving a Penalty Charge Notice. Mr Y complained to the Council, who denied fault. Mr Y then approached us.

Analysis

6. A charge applies to vehicles without an exemption if they enter the Council’s CAZ. This charge can be paid up to six days before or after travel to the CAZ. Mr Y says the website was unavailable on the day of his travel and has shown that the website was not then available for two hours the following day. However, this would mean that he had the remaining days in the six-day period to either check his vehicle’s exemption status or pay the charge.
7. The maintenance of and therefore unavailability of the website would not therefore have caused Mr Y the injustice of needing to pay the charge unnecessarily. Consequently, we will not investigate.
8. Mr Y has also said the signage on the approach to the CAZ was insufficient for him to either avoid the area or for him to know where it began. If so, he could have challenged this through the Penalty Charge Notice appeal process with the Council, on the ground that the contravention did not occur, and the charge was invalid.
9. However, Mr Y accepted the charge when he made payment for it. It is therefore unlikely we would find fault where Mr Y has agreed his responsibility for making payment. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and Mr Y has not suffered any injustice due to the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman