Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a moving traffic penalty charge notice as Miss X could have challenged it by an appeal to a tribunal, and we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council will not refund a penalty charge notice (PCN) she paid despite installing new signs at the location. Miss X seeks a refund or for the Council to be held accountable for wasting public funds if the new signs were not necessary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X appealed against a PCN the Council issued to her, for driving through a restricted zone, as she says there were no warning signs. The Council rejected the appeal and Miss X paid the PCN.
9. Miss X says that soon after, the Council erected new signs at the location. Miss X complained and asked to be refunded but the Council said that as the PCN had been paid, the case was closed. In respect of the new signs, it said these were not required to make the restriction enforceable but to provide more clarity and promote compliance rather than support enforcement.
10. I recognise why Miss X felt justified in complaining after new signs were erected but by paying the PCN, Miss X lost the right to challenge it further. Rather than paying, Miss X did have the right to make her case to an independent adjudicator at London Tribunals. They would have decided if the signage was adequate and if the PCN should stand. We are not another level of appeal and are not empowered to make such determinations. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to have appealed, and we will not therefore investigate. The Council’s actions after Miss X paid the PCN have no bearing on this.
11. As per paragraph five, we cannot investigate public spending as this impacts all or most of the people in the Council’s area.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because she had the right to challenge the PCN by way of an appeal to London Tribunals and it is reasonable to expect her to have exercised this right.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman