Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly advised him about payment of its ‘clean air zone’ charge and issued him more than 100 penalty charge notices for non-payment of the charge. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council wrongly advised him he was exempt from paying the Council’s ‘clean air zone’ charge and has failed to deal with his concerns about more than 100 penalty charge notices (PCNs) he has received for non-payment of the charge.

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.
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is part of Northampton County Court. It considers applications from local authorities to pursue payment of unpaid PCNs and from motorists to challenge local authorities’ pursuit of unpaid PCNs.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
11. The advice Mr X says he received from the Council about not having to pay the charge dates back to late 2021/early 2022. Three years have passed since this time and it is therefore unlikely we could prove on the balance of probabilities what the Council told him, in order to say it was at fault.
12. What is clear is that the Council issued Mr X numerous PCNs for non-payment of the clean air zone charge and each PCN Mr X received carried a right of appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Mr X confirms he appealed against two of the PCNs and the Council confirms it cancelled several others. In total it issued Mr X more than 100 PCNs and 67 remain outstanding.
13. Mr X says he understood the Tribunal would look at all the PCNs but it considered each case individually. It was for Mr X to clarify any questions he had about the appeals process with the Tribunal at the time and if he thought the Council was wrong to issue the PCNs it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.
14. Mr X has provided copies of letters to the Council which suggest he did not receive some of the PCNs it issued. Where this is the case Mr X may apply to the TEC to take the process back to an earlier stage. If the TEC accepts his applications this would reduce the amount of the PCNs by removing any fees charged by the Council’s enforcement agents (bailiffs) and any surcharges applied by the Council. It would also reinstate Mr X’s right of appeal against the PCNs.
15. The Council has told Mr X to contact its bailiffs to agree a payment arrangement and this seems like an appropriate way forward. It is not for us to say the Council cannot pursue the outstanding charges which we could not say were wrongly made and which have been confirmed by the TEC, without any evidence of fault in the process.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman