Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a letter sent in error by the Council to Mr X concerning driving in its Clean Air Zone. This is because neither the fault by the Council nor the injustice caused to Mr X is sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council should compensate him for the time and trouble he was put to following receipt of a letter which wrongly informed him he had been driving in the Council’s Clean Air Zone.

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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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, including its response to his complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In advance of the launch of its Clean Air Zone, the Council tested the cameras recording vehicle registrations as part of the scheme. During the testing period Mr X’s car was wrongly recorded as being in the Zone and he was sent an Early Notice letter about this. The letter gave details of who to contact if the recipient thought their car should not be charged.
6. Knowing he had not been in Bristol, and fearing his car details had been cloned, Mr X sought to contact the Council about the letter but he found it difficult to get through. However, its Clean Air Zone Support Team did respond to him and apologised if he had received a letter by mistake and suggested he contact the DVLA if he thought his car had been cloned.
7. Unhappy with the Council’s response and seeking compensation for the time he had spent contacting two police forces, the DVLA and his insurance company, Mr X pursued his complaint with the Council. It apologised for the letter he had received in error and if Mr X had been unable to access its recorded message or the information on its website. It also acknowledged there had been some delay in dealing with his complaint. However, it declined his request for £300 compensation.
8. We do not investigate every complaint we receive. We are funded by the public purse and have an obligation to use the funds allocated to us in an effective, efficient and economic way. While it is understandable that Mr X was concerned to receive a letter about his car being in Bristol when he knew it had not been, neither fault by the Council in dealing with this matter nor the injustice caused to Mr X is sufficient to warrant a formal investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because neither the fault by the Council nor the injustice caused to Mr X is sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman