Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the authority. Transport for London has also now agreed to refund part of Mr X’s payment for the penalty charge notice and this provides a suitable remedy for the complaint. It is therefore unlikely we could achieve anything more for Mr X by investigating further.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) he received from Transport for London (TfL) for entering the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) without paying the charge. He says he opened an auto-pay account with TfL before he drove into the ULEZ and believes the PCN is unfair.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and TfL.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. TfL wrote to Mr X on 4 March 2024 explaining that although he had opened an account on 18 December 2023, he did not activate the auto-pay service until 3 January 2024, after he received the PCN. This is the reason it did not automatically charge him for entering the ULEZ on 20 December 2023 and the reason he received the PCN.
6. When Mr X received the PCN he had two options- to pay the penalty charge or make representations to TfL. Mr X paid the PCN and as a result he lost his opportunity to appeal.
7. Although there is no evidence of fault in TfL’s issue of the PCN or the way it handled this matter it has agreed to refund part of Mr X’s payment, retaining only £12.50 in settlement of the case. This is the normal day-rate for entry into the ULEZ and is what Mr X would have paid, had he activated his auto-pay account at the time. We could not achieve anything more for Mr X and we will not therefore investigate the matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by TfL and TfL has in any event provided a suitable remedy for the injustice Mr X claims.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman