Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice and street signage because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council has unfairly issued several Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) to her due to a lack of signage about the restrictions on her road. Miss Y says she believes the removal of signs has been strategic to allow the Council to issue more PCNs.
2. Miss Y says she has had to take time to deal with the matter and has paid over £600 for the PCNs, including a fee to her vehicle hire company.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Miss Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss Y says that the PCN the Council issued should not have been enforced because there is insufficient signage on the road to indicate restrictions. Miss Y says this led to her receiving a series of PCNs which she feels are unfair. She has also suggested that she believes the Council has been strategically removing signage to make the likelihood of it being able to issue a PCN greater.
7. Miss Y has now paid the penalties, amounting to just over £600, despite her disagreement with it, instead of using her right to appeal it to the London Tribunals. If Miss Y has felt that the signage was inadequate to meet the requirements or that her vehicle, as a resident on the street, should have been exempt, it is for her as the driver and recipient of the PCNs to challenge this, even if this involves action at the court, such as the Traffic Enforcement Centre or the London Tribunals.
8. In deciding not to appeal and paying the penalties, even if she may disagree with the PCNs, Miss Y has legally accepted her liability for the penalty and the validity of the PCN itself. As she has accepted its validity, it is unlikely we would now find fault in the Council’s enforcement of the PCN. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman