Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices and highway signage. This is because Mr Y has already appealed to the London Tribunals and the remaining issues are inextricably linked to the matter appealed on.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council wrongly issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to him, which led to him appealing to the London Tribunals, who upheld his appeal. He also complained the Council provided incorrect evidence to the London Tribunals, which it initially denied, both in the tribunal and complaints process.
2. Mr Y says he felt frustrated at not being listened to and needing to appeal to the Tribunal, which he did in person. He says he felt the Council did not seem to care and he is concerned that the signage in the area is still not suitable, which may cause a risk to pupils from the nearby school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
5. 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))
6. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
7. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council issued a PCN to Mr Y which he has since successfully appealed to the London Tribunals. The legislation from which the Ombudsman takes their power also places some restrictions on what we may investigate. This includes that we cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. Mr Y has appealed to a tribunal about the issuing of the PCN, so we cannot investigate this complaint.
10. Further, the issues relating to the evidence provided to the Tribunal are inextricably linked to the matter the Tribunal considered. Consequently, we cannot investigate this complaint.
11. Mr Y has also complained about the signage at the location for which he appealed the PCN. The Council responded that the signage met all the legal requirements. It said drivers would need to pass three separate signs before they entered the location and would be adequately notified of restrictions.
12. The Council as a local highways authority has a statutory duty to ensure that signage meets the requirements of the Ministry of Transport.
13. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
14. In this case, it has considered the signage, pictures of which it has provided to Mr Y in the complaint correspondence, and found it is compliant. As it has made this decision considering relevant evidence and reference to the required standards, it is unlikely we would find fault in this complaint. Therefore, we will not investigate.
15. As referred to in paragraph seven, where we are not investigating the substantive matter, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how a council has considered a complaint. Consequently, as we are not investigating the substantive issue here, we will not investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because he has already appealed to the London Tribunals and the remaining issues are inextricably linked to the matter appealed on.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman