The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
Mrs Y complains the Council issued her with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) after she entered a pedestrian and cycle only zone because the signs put up by the Council were not obvious enough for drivers and there were no markings on the road itself to show she could not drive there.
Mrs Y says she was upset by the fine as she has not had this happen before and she was driving her disabled mother to a friend’s house.
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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Mrs Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued a PCN to Mrs Y after she drove into a pedestrian and cycling only zone in January 2022. Mrs Y appealed to the Council.
The Council rejected her appeal in January. It explained the restrictions on the road within its response and confirmed that signs were in place to advise drivers of the restrictions on the use of the road at different times of day. It said these signs met the required standard and provided Mrs Y with the photographic evidence the Council’s cameras had collected to demonstrate both the signs and the contravention.
Following the rejection of her appeal, Mrs Y paid the fine. She then approached us in February.
Analysis The Council has considered Mrs Y’s appeal but has rejected this on the basis that the signage in place, which it has also provided evidence of to Mrs Y, is sufficient to warn drivers of restrictions on the road. Following the Council’s rejection of her appeal, it was for Mrs Y to decide either to pay the fine or to progress her appeal to the tribunal. Mrs Y chose to pay the fine and therefore accepted liability for the PCN. As she has accepted her liability, and the Council has provided evidence of suitable signs in place along the road, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint.
While Mrs Y has commented to us that she feels the Council should have placed a marker on the road, rather than just signs, which she did not see when she was driving as the area was unfamiliar, this is not a requirement. As signage was in place, which would be visible to drivers, who are expected to read and interpret such signs while driving, even in unfamiliar areas, it is unlikely we would find the Council at fault.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman