Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the Tribunal was the appropriate body to consider Mr X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for driving in a bus lane. Mr X argues he had no choice but to drive in the bus lane to access a loading bay. Mr X paid the PCN but did not realise this completed the process. Mr X wants the chance to appeal the Council’s decision and clearer road signs.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal 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 appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. London Tribunals (the Tribunal) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for moving traffic contraventions. The Council will issue a PCN to the owner/registered keeper by post. This will detail the amount of the fine and the motorist’s right of appeal - firstly to the Council itself and then to a Tribunal (in this case London Tribunals).
9. The motorist has 28 days from the date of the notice to pay the penalty charge or make representations against it. For the first 14 days after the PCN the motorist may pay at a discounted rate of 50% of the full fine.
10. A PCN was sent to Mr X, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, for a bus lane contravention.
11. Mr X made representations against the PCN but also paid at the discounted rate. The Council accepted his payment and closed the case. The Council then entered into an exchange of emails with Mr X. It confirmed the matter was closed as Mr X had paid the PCN. It also said its original decision to issue the PCN was correct. The Council said Mr X’s vehicle could be seen driving in the bus lane.
12. We will not start an investigation into Mr X’s complaint. This is because:
• I have considered the PCN and it correctly explained the process. The discounted rate is only available for a short time, and this was explained on the PCN. The regulations, which are set by Parliament and not the Council, restrict the period when the discounted rate is payable. There is no evidence of fault here.
• The PCN clearly stated “Please do not make payment if you wish to challenge this PCN”. It was not fault by the Council to accept payment from Mr X at the reduced rate. This meant Mr X could not appeal to the Tribunal, but as explained above, there was no fault in the information given about this point.
• While Mr X disagrees with the Council’s position that the PCN should have been issued, I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s response for us to question it.
• Ultimately, if Mr X wanted to challenge the Council further, it would have been reasonable for him to withhold payment and appeal to London Tribunals. It was the appropriate body to consider Mr X’s case. The fact Mr X did not realise paying the PCN brought the matter to a close is not because of any fault by the Council.
• Even if Mr X had appealed to the Tribunal, it seems unlikely it would have succeeded. This is because none of the grounds for making representations seem to apply. These are:
1. The recipient was not the owner of the vehicle.
2. The contravention did not occur.
3. The vehicle was taken without the owner’s consent.
13. We will not therefore investigate for the reasons set out above.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and the Tribunal was the appropriate body to consider his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman