The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council serving Mr X and others Penalty Charge Notices for contraventions in a Low Traffic Neighbourhood. The injustice Mr X experienced was not significant enough to justify our involvement and was not caused by the fault he alleges in the Council’s actions.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council made a mistake that led to it illegally issuing him and others Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) for a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme. He says the Council has attempted to conceal its error, falsifying documents and misleading drivers. Mr X paid £65 and wants the Council to apologise and refund all affected drivers.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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: 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)) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued Mr X a PCN in January 2022, for an offence in December 2021. The Council made clear in its communications with Mr X that if he wished to appeal the PCN, he should not pay it. Mr X paid the PCN immediately on receiving it. However, he later found out that others had been similarly affected by the new LTN scheme and he discovered there had been an error in the Council’s initial Traffic Management Order which it amended in February 2022.
Mr X received a further two PCNs for further offences, which he appealed to the tribunal. The Council said while the contraventions occurred and the PCNs were issued correctly, it would not contest his appeal because he had paid the first PCN. We cannot consider these subsequent two PCNs as Mr X used his right of appeal.
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. Mr X cites an error in the initial Traffic Management Order as having caused the PCN to have been incorrectly issued. However, were it not for the error, which the Council has since corrected, Mr X would still have been issued a PCN and he would still have paid the £65 on receiving it. Mr X has not experienced a significant injustice, and in any event the injustice was not a direct result of the error he highlights.
Mr X says others have been affected by PCNs on the same stretch of road since the new scheme was introduced and indicates their injustice could be more significant. It is open to other members of the public to complain to us separately, for us to consider their individual circumstances separately and decide whether we can, and should, investigate their complaints.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he did not suffer a significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman