Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because Miss Y has already appealed to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal about the same matter.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council refused to allow her to pay the original Clean Air Zone (CAZ) charge after she accidentally paid the charge to a scam website, rather than to the Council and received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
2. Miss Y says the issue has led to her penalty increasing to £180, which is causing her financial difficulties, and she feels she has been punished for being the victim of a fraud.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

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))

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 Miss Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss Y says she tried to pay the CAZ charge when she was travelling and accidentally paid the charge on a scam website, which cost her £14. She says she then received the PCN and despite having explained her situation to the Council, the Council has pursued her for the penalty amount.
8. Miss Y made representations to the Council, but these were rejected. The Council explained that while Miss Y may have paid a third party, the charge, however unintentionally, had not been paid and it was for her to ensure that she paid the charge correctly. It referred Miss Y to the right to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
9. Miss Y’s partner, who is the registered keeper of the vehicle she drove, appealed the PCN to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal but was unsuccessful.
10. As the PCN has been appealed to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate the matter. Further, as the Council considered Miss Y’s representations and has been able to explain its rationale for rejecting her appeal to it against the PCN, there is not enough evidence to justify investigating her complaint, even if we could investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We cannot investigate Miss Y’s complaint because she has already appealed to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal about the same matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman