Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s road closures on match days and the adequacy of signage for diversions. Mr X used his statutory right of appeal against a Penalty Charge Notice, and we cannot also consider Mr X’s representations against it. Any separable injustice experienced by Mr X is not so significant as to justify investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council handled planned and recurring match-day closures. He said it did not properly consider or apply the relevant guidance when managing access to a railway station and failed to put in place compliant temporary directional signage.
2. Mr X said this caused him the inconvenience of having to rely on local knowledge to reach the railway station to collect a vulnerable person, which caused stress and delay. He also said the matter caused him to inadvertently drive through a bus gate, resulting in the stress of dealing with a subsequent Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and enforcement action.
3. Mr X wanted the Council to apologise and accept fault, and make improvements to how it handles diversions. He also wanted it to refund him, and any others affected, for unfair PCNs and related enforcement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X says the matter he complains about resulted in him receiving a PCN for inadvertently driving through a bus gate. Mr X appealed the PCN to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. We cannot also consider the PCN. I have not included the PCN when considering what injustice Mr X may have experienced, as doing so would encroach on the role of the tribunal.
9. We could not investigate any matters that Mr X raised as part of his appeal. Therefore, if he referred to the Council’s signage as mitigation in that appeal, we would have no power to investigate this complaint. However, I have not seen the appeal documents and so I have considered whether we would investigate the complaint if we considered the matter sufficiently separable to that appeal.
10. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider. This means that we will normally only investigate a complaint where:
• the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the service provider, or
• there are continuous and ongoing instances of a lower-level injustice that remain unresolved over a long period of time.
11. Mr X’s inconvenience and stress, and the delay he says he experienced, do not meet this threshold. Although he says the road closures are recurring on match days, he refers in particular to one occasion when he picked up a vulnerable person from the railway station. There is no indication this is a journey he must undertake every match day, and Mr X indicates he also had some local knowledge which limited his inconvenience. There in insufficient evidence of a significant personal injustice which would justify investigating this complaint.
12. Nor is there an overwhelming reason for us to investigate the matter in the public interest, in the absence of a significant personal injustice. Anyone who has received a PCN should use their statutory right of appeal, and anyone who has experienced a different personal injustice can complain to us if necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because Mr X used his statutory right of appeal against a Penalty Charge Notice, and any separable injustice experienced by Mr X is not so significant as to justify investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman