Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notice because Mr Y has already appealed to the Tribunal and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council issued him with a Penalty Charge Notice despite him trying to pay the Clean Air Zone daily charge but incorrectly entering his registration number. He also complained that the Council refused to tell him whether a destination was within the CAZ or not.
2. Mr Y says this led to a £120 penalty, when he had already paid the £9 charge and he then felt unable to risk not paying when he was visiting the area and was unsure whether he had entered the CAZ or not.

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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y paid the daily charge for the CAZ of £9. However, he incorrectly entered his registration plate. As his vehicle was not associated with a payment, the Council issued a PCN for non-payment of the charge. MR Y appealed this PCN to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. The law says we do not have the power to investigate complaints where someone has already used their right to appeal to the Tribunal. Consequently, we cannot investigate this complaint.
7. Mr Y then travelled to the area again. He was concerned about receiving a further penalty and contacted the Council and asked if his vehicle had been within the zone. Mr Y says the Council refused to tell him whether he had been in the area and therefore if he needed to pay the charge or not. Mr Y then decided to pay the daily charge of £9, so he would not receive a penalty.
8. The Council has a map and information about the CAZ on its website. Mr Y could have used this map to check his route and whether he had entered the CAZ. He may wish to do this before any future journeys.
9. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
10. While Mr Y may have felt frustration at the issue and paid the penalty, which he may or may not have needed to do, costing him £9, we would not consider this a sufficiently significant loss, harm or distress to justify investigation. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because Mr Y has already appealed to the Tribunal and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman