Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a moving traffic penalty charge notice as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Council and Ms X had the right to appeal against the level of the charge to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains she was unfairly issued with a moving traffic penalty charge notice (PCN) due to unclear signage and that the rate of the PCN is disproportionately high.

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. 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. 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)
5. 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)

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. The Council considered Ms X’s representations against the PCN and set out in detail why it rejected them, including explaining the duty on motorists to be aware of such road charges, how the signs meet legal requirements and the process taken before they were adopted.
9. I recognise Ms X is unhappy with the outcome, but we cannot be critical of it unless there is evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration. Ms X’s complaint does not provide evidence of such fault.
10. The law provides certain appeal grounds against PCNs which can be heard by independent adjudicators at, in this case, London Tribunals (the Tribunal). One of the grounds of appeal is: ‘that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case’. It was therefore open to Ms X to challenge this aspect of the PCN via an appeal to the Tribunal. We are not another level of appeal in this process and cannot make the decisions of the Tribunal. It is reasonable to expect Ms X therefore to have followed the statutory appeal procedure available to her and we will not investigate this aspect.
11. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely we will find fault in the Council’s consideration of her representations against the PCN, and Ms X had the right to challenge the legality of the fine level at the Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman