London Borough of Camden (24 010 000)
Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 29 Sep 2024
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about moving traffic penalties because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
The complaint
- Mr Y complained the Council’s signage for a restricted access road was insufficient, leading to him receiving a PCN. Mr Y also complained the Council’s signage is inadequate due to the high level of PCNs issued for contraventions at this specific point on the Council’s highway area.
- Mr Y says he feels aggrieved at the amount of PCNs the Council is issuing in this location and feels he should not have received the PCN.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information Mr Y and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mr Y disputes the validity of the PCN the Council has issued. He has now paid the penalty, despite his disagreement with it, instead of using his right to appeal it to the London Tribunals. If Mr Y has felt that the signage was inadequate to meet the requirements, it is for him as the driver and recipient of the PCN to challenge this.
- In deciding not to appeal and paying the penalty, Mr Y has legally accepted his liability for the penalty and the validity of the PCN itself. As he has accepted its validity, it is unlikely we would now find fault in the Council’s issuing or enforcement of the PCN. We will not investigate this.
- Mr Y has also complained about the level of PCNs received at this location, information about which he received after he made a freedom of information request. Mr Y says that the level of PCNs issued demonstrates that more signage would better inform drivers about the particular restriction.
- While additional signage may be useful, it does not necessarily correlate that a high amount of PCNs for one location means there is insufficient signage. Each PCN issued has a right of appeal to it and if drivers feel signage is insufficient it is for them to challenge this through the statutory process.
- Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
- Mr Y has not suffered a serious loss, harm or distress due to the level of PCNs the Council has issued. While he may feel aggrieved about the issue, this is not significant enough of an injustice to justify investigation. We will not investigate.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman