Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council wrongly issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) against him, as he says signage in place was not placed with enough warning on the road to know when he could or could not use the bus lane.
2. Mr Y feels it would have been fairer if he had been issued with a warning from the Council first, as he says has happened in other cases since his. He says he has been caused upset and worry and says he was unaware that he was unable to go in the bus lane at that time of day.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y disputes the validity of the PCN the Council has issued. He says in his correspondence that the signage in the area was inadequate and so he was not aware he was not able to drive in the bus lane at the time of day in which the contravention occurred.
7. Mr Y has now paid the penalty, despite his disagreement with it, instead of using his right to appeal it to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. If Mr Y has felt that the signage was inadequate to meet the requirements, it is for him as the driver and recipient of the PCN to challenge this. In PCN matters, the Council is not under a duty to give drivers a warning before issuing a PCN to them so we would not consider it fault that the Council did not do so.
8. In deciding not to appeal and paying the penalty, Mr Y has legally accepted his liability for the penalty and the validity of the PCN itself. As he has accepted its validity, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s issuing and pursuit of the penalty. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman