Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a traffic penalty for entering a restricted area. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the London Tribunals who are the proper authority to consider traffic penalty appeals. We will not consider his complaint about existing traffic signs as there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about his son receiving a traffic penalty for entering a restricted zone. He says there were no advance warning signs before the junction into the zone. He also complained about delay in the Council’s issue of a rejection of his representations when he challenged the penalty. He says the Council should pay him compensation for his time in appealing and erect additional signage as required by the regulations.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
3. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X says his son received a traffic penalty after he turned into a restricted zone following instructions of his driving examiner. He made representations to the Council challenging the penalty on the basis that there was inadequate signage. The Council responded outside the 56 days timescale in its guidance. However, he was able to submit an appeal to the London tribunals. The appeal was upheld by the Adjudicator who was not satisfied that the zone had been clearly communicated to the driver before he turned into it. The penalty was dismissed.
8. Mr X says the Council should erect additional advanced warning signs following the appeal decision. The Council says there is no statutory requirement for advanced signs and the Adjudicator acknowledged that the statutory signs are in place. It says any advanced signs would compromise visibility for a zebra crossing which is why this street does not have them when others do.
9. The Council is the highway authority and it has powers to decide where discretionary signs and equipment should be placed within the highway. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process. The Council has to evaluate the risks of providing highway infrastructure.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a traffic penalty for entering a restricted area. It was reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the London Tribunals who are the proper authority to consider traffic penalty appeals. We will not consider his complaint about existing traffic signs as there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman