The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council issued a penalty charge notice (PCN) for driving into a restricted area and delayed supplying information, so he was obliged to pay the fine. Mr X had time to make a representation against the PCN. It would have been reasonable for him to use his right of appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal if he wanted to contest the notice.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council issued a penalty charge notice (PCN) because he drove into an area restricted to buses. Mr X says there was no way he could have seen the signs warning of the restricted area. Mr X wants the Council to refund the £30 discounted fine.
Mr X complains he paid the penalty charge notice (PCN) against his will and due to the Council’s poor communication. He says it supplied evidence he requested at the last moment. Mr X’s says the Council’s complaint handling was poor. He says the Council should pay compensation.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered Mr X’s information and comments. The Council has provided the PCN documents and the correspondence with Mr X.
My assessment
I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons: The complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because Mr X had a right of appeal to a tribunal (see paragraphs 3 and 4 above). The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London. The Council’s PCN to Mr X, dated 12 May 2022, explains the right to make a representation against the notice and if rejected the right to appeal to an independent adjudicator.
I consider it reasonable for Mr X to have used his right of appeal to the Tribunal if he had a ground to dispute the PCN. The Tribunal has the power to quash the PCN.
We cannot achieve what Mr X wants. He was not forced to pay the PCN on 25 May, as he did, because the Council had confirmed he could make a representation into June. Mr X could have made a representation within the time allowed explaining why he had driven into the restricted area. He explained his view that signage was poor when he complained to the Council and its complaint reply, 28 June, explains why it would not accept his argument.
There is no reason to consider further the communications or complaint handling which have not caused Mr X an injustice.
Final decision
The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council issued a penalty charge notice (PCN) for driving into a restricted area and delayed supplying information, so he was obliged to pay the fine. Mr X had time to make a representation against the PCN. It would have been reasonable for him to use his right of appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal if he wanted to contest the notice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman