Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about several Penalty Charge Notices issued by the Council. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the actions the Council has taken and it would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal against the notices to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr X travelled into a Clean Air Zone (CAZ) several times within a short period of time. Mr X says he was unfamiliar with the area and did not realise the area was within a CAZ.
2. Mr X says that the Council delayed in issuing the first Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) so he did not receive it until around 5 weeks after he entered the CAZ. In the meantime, he had returned to the same area. Mr X then received two further PCNs.
3. Mr X says had the Council issued the PCNs more quickly he would not have made the same mistake and would therefore have not received the other two PCNs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal about the same matter. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal but cannot investigate if the person has already appealed. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. There is no requirement under the relevant legislation (Transport Act 2000, Bristol Clean Air Zone Charging Order 2022, Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013) to issue a PCN within any set period of time. It is therefore unlikely we could say any delay in issuing the PCNs amounted to fault.
10. The Council informed Mr X that he was able to appeal against the PCNs and it would have been reasonable to do so. As part of his appeal Mr X could have explained that he was not aware of the CAZ and if the Adjudicator had accepted this argument they could have referred the matter back to the Council with a recommendation to cancel the PCNs.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the actions the Council has taken, and it would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal against the PCNs to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman