Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about five Penalty Charge Notices because the complainant either has, or could have, followed the statutory process. In addition, we cannot change the Council’s policy regarding school streets.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, is appealing against five Penalty Charge Notices (PCN). She says the road signs are confusing and she disagrees with the introduction of school streets. Ms X wants us to cancel the PCNs and review the scheme.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes information about the PCNs and school streets. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Since 2020 the Council has been introducing restrictions, at certain times, on some roads near schools (school streets). In short, during the prescribed hours, some roads are restricted to cyclists and pedestrians. The scheme has been subject to consultation, established through Traffic Regulation Orders, and approved by councillors and Council officers.
7. The Council issued Ms X with five PCNs. Ms X says she incurred them when using a route she has used for three years to take her child to school. She says the signs are confusing and misleading.
8. The Council cancelled three of the PCNs after receiving challenges from Ms X.
9. There are two remaining PCNs. For each the Council has issued a charge certificate and, if they remain unpaid, the next step will be for the Council to register them in court. The Council could then instruct bailiffs.
10. We will not investigate the remaining PCNs because Ms X could have followed the statutory process. If she challenged them with the Council, and the Council rejected her challenge, she could either have paid or appealed to the tribunal. It is reasonable to expect her to appeal because the tribunal is the correct body to consider PCNs appeals. If it upholds an appeal it has the power to cancel a PCN – we do not have that power and we are not an appeal body. Ms X could have appealed on the grounds she thinks the signs are misleading.
11. If Ms X did not start the statutory process, and challenge the PCNs with the Council, then we would expect her to do so. We cannot cancel the remaining PCNs. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to use the statutory process as she did with the other PCNs.
12. We will not investigate the decision to introduce school streets because it is a policy introduced by the Council and we cannot change Council policy. If Ms X disagrees with the school street policy she could raise her concerns with local councillors. It would be for the Council, not us, to decide whether to make any changes.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because Ms X could have used the statutory process to challenge the PCNs and we cannot change the school street policy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman