Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because Mr Y has already had his case considered by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council wrongly issued and enforced a penalty charge notice (PCN) after it failed to notify him he was no longer exempt from the charge to enter the Clean Air Zone (CAZ). Mr Y is also unhappy with the correspondence about the PCN which he found confusing. He also complained it refused to use its discretion to waive the PCN.
2. Mr Y says the issue caused him significant distress and worry and led to the increase in the penalty amount.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y received a PCN after driving in the Council’s Clean Air Zone without paying the charge. Mr Y says he did this as he believed he was still exempt, but after a change in his benefit entitlement, Mr Y in fact needed to pay.
8. Mr Y complained to the Council and made representations against the PCN, including about his mitigating circumstances. Mr Y’s representations included his ill health, his difficulty understanding the letters, not knowing he had to pay, and the lack of response to his representations within the 14-day period. Mr Y said this led to the penalty increasing to the full amount of £120.
9. The Council rejected Mr Y’s representations including his mitigating circumstances. Mr Y then appealed the PCN to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT), who did not uphold his appeal. Mr Y approached us.
10. As Mr Y has appealed to the TPT, we do not have the legal power to investigate Mr Y’s complaint about this or the issues considered within his appeal. We cannot therefore investigate the majority of Mr Y’s complaints.
11. However, Mr Y has said the Council wrongly refused to use its discretion to waive the PCN. This is an issue we can potentially consider.
12. The Council has considered its discretion but decided not to waive the penalty. It has explained it had told Mr Y the amount would increase if he did not pay within 14 days, even if he made representations. As Mr Y had been told this, he had accepted that the amount would increase if he made representations. The Council therefore said it would not accept Mr Y’s mitigating circumstances and £120 was due.
13. As the Council considered the mitigating circumstances properly, and explained its rational to Mr Y, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. As the Tribunal considered the other issues, we cannot and will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because Mr Y has already had his case considered by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman