The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a misleading traffic sign as Mr X could have addressed this via an appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council is misleading motorists via an unclear sign, causing motorists to be issued with parking penalty charge notices (PCNs) which in turn is raising significant funds for the Council. Mr X wants the Council to clearly mark out the parking bay and to make a financial payment to him for the time and trouble he has gone to in pursuing this matter.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X was himself issued with a PCN for parking at the location in question. I note Mr X says his complaint is not about his own PCN, but about the wider issue affecting other motorists. However, it still stands that Mr X had the right to appeal against the PCN to the independent parking adjudicators at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) who would have given a determination as to whether the signage at the location was clear or not and if the PCN was therefore valid or not. The parking adjudicators are the experts on such matters and therefore best placed to address the concerns Mr X raises. As such, I consider it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have made an appeal to the TPT and we will not therefore investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he could have appealed to the TPT about his PCN and had the issues he raises now, addressed.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman