Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s implementation of CCTV traffic enforcement in Mr X’s area. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council’s signage was not compliant with the CCTV Code of Practice when it introduced traffic enforcement cameras in his locale.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council about its failure to comply with the CCTV Code of Practice. He said his wife had received a PCN but that his main reason for raising the matter was his belief that initial Council signage had not been compliant with the Code and this was why it had subsequently introduced further signage at the site.
6. The Council addressed an FOI request from Mr X and responded in some detail to the various issues he raised. It told him that when poor observance of new controls remains high after a bedding-in period, it can provide supplementary signage to minimise the risk of drivers breaching the restrictions by mistake. It said it considered the original camera signage installed to have been sufficient to allow enforcement to start and it pointed out that had it not been, this would have been a theme in adjudications and this had not been the case. It said it was satisfied its initial signage was compliant and that it would have been open to drivers who had wanted to contest PCNs to have sought an independent review via the Tribunals Service on their own case.
7. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and I consider it unlikely we would find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation. Moreover, I do not consider Mr X has been caused any significant injustice as a result of the fault he has claimed. His wife received a PCN and could have appealed if she had wanted to challenge it.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman