Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to cancel a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the £35 Mr X paid is not significant enough to warrant investigation. Mr X also had a right of appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal which it would have been reasonable for him to use.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council refused to cancel a penalty charge notice (PCN) for a bus lane contravention issued on a bank holiday. He says the Council failed to show any common sense in the matter and believes it should not have issued the PCN in the first place.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council does not enforce bus lane contraventions on weekends but it does on bank holidays. Mr X drove in a bus lane on a bank holiday and the Council issued him a PCN but Mr X believes this lacks common sense.
8. Mr X made representations against the PCN but the Council refused them. He then paid the PCN to avoid any increase in the amount of the penalty charge.
9. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It is entitled to enforce the bus lane restrictions on bank holidays and did not publish any information to suggest it would not.
10. The Council considered the comments Mr X made in his representations but it did not have to cancel the PCN. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s policy but the Council has explained the reasons for it. The amount Mr X paid- £35- is also not significant enough to warrant investigation.
11. In any event, the PCN carried a right of appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and if Mr X felt there were compelling reasons for the Tribunal to cancel the PCN it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.
12. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice. Mr X also had a right of appeal which it would have been reasonable for him to use.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman