Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for a bus lane contravention. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council did not consider his representations appeal for a penalty charge notice (PCN) following a bus lane violation. Mr X stated that the experience has left him feeling frustrated and anxious. Mr X would like an apology for the distress and time taken to deal with the matter, and for the Council to cancel the PCN

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council issued Mr X a PCN for driving in a bus lane in winter 2024.
6. Mr X challenged the PCN. He agreed that he drove in the bus lane but stated that he was unfamiliar with the area and misjudged the road markings.
7. The Council considered his representations but rejected them in spring 2025. The Council noted the multiple signs and road markings highlighting the bus lane within its notification of rejection.
8. Mr X stated that he did not receive the notification of rejection. Mr X then received a charge certificate requesting an increased amount for the PCN.
9. Mr X filed a witness statement with the Traffic Enforcement Centre in summer 2025 on the grounds that he did not receive the rejection notice. This witness statement was accepted and the court ordered that the charge certificate be cancelled. Mr X then paid the PCN at the original £35 charge.
10. The Council considered Mr X’s representations and set out reasons why they were rejected. Although Mr X did not receive the notification of rejection in the post, there is not sufficient evidence of fault on how the Council considered his representations to justify our involvement.
11. Additionally, Mr X’s witness statement was accepted by the TEC because he did not receive the rejection notice. Mr X has now paid the PCN at the initial charge. Even though Mr X stated he did not receive the rejection notice, he is back in the position he would have been in. Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman