Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s implementation of its School Streets programme. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to put in place an adequate system for ensuring school street signs are only open during term time. He also complains the Council takes enforcement action against motorists for breach of school street restrictions despite knowing it has incorrectly positioned its enforcement camera in the area.
2. Mr X says he is concerned about other drivers being unaware of when the restrictions apply and them then receiving PCNs which they have to appeal.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council issued two Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) to Mr X for driving along a street which had restrictions for vehicles under the School Streets Programme. The restrictions closed the road to vehicles during periods at the start and end of the school day. Mr X successfully appealed this to the London Tribunals on the basis the School Street signage, which outlined the restrictions, was closed when the contravention had allegedly occurred. The PCN’s were cancelled.
7. Mr X then made Freedom of Information (FOI) requests about PCNs in the area and the School Streets programme. Mr X’s concern was that signage was not being adequately administered. Specifically, signs were not being opened and closed at the correct times to show the restrictions. Mr X felt the signs were often left open despite it not being term time, causing potential confusion.
8. Mr X then complained to the Council about how it manages the School Streets programme. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response, so he approached us.
9. Mr X suggests the Council may have wrongly taken enforcement action against other motorists because of the position its enforcement camera, which he says means it cannot prove contraventions have occurred. He suggests signage is not managed adequately for other motorists to know of when restrictions apply.
10. Any motorist issued with a PCN has the right to appeal. The London Tribunals decide if there are grounds to cancel a PCN, based on the circumstance of each case. We would not consider appealing PCNs to be an injustice as it is an expected potential part of driving.
11. Any injustice caused to Mr X lies in the PCNs the Council issued to him. He has used his right of appeal to the London Tribunals to challenge these. Mr X has told us he only wishes to complain to us about the issues noted in paragraph one.
12. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
13. We will normally only investigate a complaint where a complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of fault or failure by the Council. Mr X has not suffered a serious loss, harm or distress and his concerns relate to the experience of others. Therefore, any injustice caused to Mr X by the Council administering the School Streets programme is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
14. We do not investigate complaints about complaint handling where we cannot
    investigate the substantive matter. As such, we will not investigate how the
    Council dealt with or responded to Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s implementation of its School Streets programme. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman