Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a moving traffic penalty because Mr Y has already appealed to the Tribunal about the same matter and the complaint is inextricably linked to this appeal.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council wrongly issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to him for entry into a yellow box junction and its refusal to review road markings and enforcement at the junction. Mr Y is also unhappy with how the Council dealt with and responded to his complaint.
2. Mr Y says the issue caused him frustration, upset and time spent dealing with the matter.

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. The courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, reference or review or remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
5. 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))
6. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr Y appealed the PCN to the London Tribunals. The Tribunal upheld Mr Y’s appeal and cancelled the PCN. Mr Y then complained to the Council, asking it to apologise for issuing the PCN to him. He also complained that the Council’s road markings were not compliant, which he gave as the reason his appeal had been successful.
9. The Council responded, saying other PCNs had been upheld by the Tribunal on the issue, and the decision in Mr Y’s appeal did not require the Council to either change its enforcement or markings at the junction.
10. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. In this case, Mr Y has received a PCN and successfully appealed it through the London Tribunals. We cannot investigate the issuing of the PCN to Mr Y as he has used his right to appeal.
11. We also cannot investigate where someone has used their right of appeal, even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claim. Mr Y became aware of his dissatisfaction with the road markings and the Council’s enforcement of it, through the issuing of the PCN he was able to appeal. While he may feel it is unfair that the enforcement occurred or that it continues, this is inextricably linked to the PCN he received from the Council. As Mr Y appealed the PCN to the Tribunal, we cannot now investigate his complaint about the enforcement or markings at the junction.
12. As we are not investigating the substantive matter, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with or responded to Mr Y’s complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because Mr Y has already appealed to the Tribunal about the same matter and the complaint is inextricably linked to this appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman