Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for a traffic contravention. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable. Nor will we investigate a separate complaint about the Council’s continued use of a traffic enforcement camera. Any fault alleged by Mr X here has not caused him an injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council has knowingly failed to address an issue with traffic and signage at a location where it is using a traffic enforcement camera. He says because of the Council’s fault, he was wrongly issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for a traffic contravention.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits 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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for the rest of England.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued Mr X with a PCN for a traffic contravention. Mr X said he only received the PCN because he was unaware of the contravention due to poor traffic signage. Mr X complained about this to the Council. Mr X paid the PCN rather than pursuing the matter through the statutory representations and appeals procedure.
8. However, by paying the PCN, Mr X has now accepted liability for the offence, and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us in investigating the complaint. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used his right of appeal to the Tribunal on this matter.
9. Mr X pointed out subsequent information he obtained which he said shows a high number of traffic contraventions at this location. Mr X said this means the Council is misusing the traffic enforcement camera to generate revenue rather than thinking about other ways to prevent offences happening.
10. I will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint either. This is because any complaint about the Council’s continued use of the camera at this location has not caused him an injustice. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern, but where they have not suffered injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable. Any fault in the Council continuing to use a traffic enforcement camera has not caused Mr X a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman