Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged parking or traffic contravention. It would be reasonable to expect the complainant to have used the statutory representations and appeals procedure. Nor will investigate how the Council communicated about this matter, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

The complaint

1. X says the Council wrongly issued a Penalty Charge Notice, did not provide evidence of the offence, and did not properly consider their representations about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged traffic contravention. They also said it was wrong not to have used its discretion to refund a fine, after X paid it. X wants the Council to review the road signs at this location.
2. X said the Council has not responded to a request for information they made.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
4. 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. If the person has already appealed, we have no power to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for the rest of England.
6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
7. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information from the complainant and the Council and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. X said the Council wrongly issued a PCN, because traffic signage was poor and this meant the contravention could not have occurred. They also said the Council did not provide them with evidence about the offence.
10. I will not investigate a complaint about this matter. This is because if X had believed the contravention did not happen, it would have been reasonable to have expected them to use the statutory appeal route, that is provided for appealing PCN’s.
11. X said the Council should have used their discretion to refund the PCN, after X told it about their disabilities and financial hardship. I will not investigate a complaint about how the Council communicated over this matter, because X has now accepted liability for this fine and we cannot direct the Council to refund their fine and so there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.
12. Nor will we investigate the Council’s response to an information request that X made. The Information Commissioner is a body that is better placed to consider a complaint about information rights.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because it would be reasonable for the complainant to have used the representations and appeals procedure. And there is otherwise no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman