Summary: Mr X complained Transport for London issued him with a penalty charge notice for travelling in the Ultra Low Emission Zone and did not properly consider his representation and complaint about this. There was no fault in how Transport for London issued a charge or dealt with Mr X’s representation. The time it took to fully respond to his complaint did not cause him injustice so we will not investigate that further.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that Transport for London issued him a penalty charge notice for travelling in the Ultra Low Emission Zone without warning him about the charge. He says it had not contacted him abut the charge beforehand, as its website said it should, having travelled into London several times in the previous year.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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) London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
4. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint.
7. I considered correspondence provided by Transport for London and guidance on its website.
8. I gave Transport for London and Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received.

Back to top

What I found

Background

Ultra Low Emission Zone

9. The Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) covers part of central London. It was introduced in April 2019 to help reduce harmful emissions from vehicles. It covers the same area as the congestion charge and operates alongside it. It replaced a previous “T (toxicity)-Charge” that operated in the same area for polluting types of vehicle.
10. To travel in the ULEZ, drivers of certain types of vehicles must pay a daily charge, on top of the congestion charge. Payment must be made by midnight on the day of the journey or up to 90 days in advance. Drivers of vehicles that meet more modern emission standards do not have to pay the ULEZ charge.
11. ULEZ warning road signs are located at entry points to the zone. Transport for London (TFL) advertised introduction of the ULEZ. It contacted drivers it knew had driven within the zone during the year before its introduction, by letter and email, to warn them about the charge.
12. Drivers intending to visit the zone can use the TFL website, entering their registration details, to check if they need to pay.
13. If someone drives in the ULEZ and does not pay the charge by the following day, TFL sends them a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). This states the penalty they must pay. The person can decide either to pay the charge, or challenge it, within 28 days of getting the notice. There are limited grounds on which they can challenge the PCN, for example if they were not the registered keeper of the vehicle or they had paid the charge.
14. TFL will also consider whether to use its discretion to look at other circumstances. TFL’s website says that it will not accept certain explanations as mitigation including “not knowing about the ULEZ”. If TFL rejects the challenge it will tell the person whether they have a right to appeal to an independent adjudicator.

ULEZ complaints

15. TFL has a three-stage procedure for complaints about the ULEZ (after the representation process ends). It aims to usually reply at stage one within 10 working days, stage two by a manager in another 10 working days and stage three by a senior manager in a further 10 working days. Its website also directs complainants to the Ombudsman.

What happened

16. Mr X drove his vehicle within the ULEZ without paying the necessary daily charge. TFL sent him a PCN. He made a representation against the decision. He said he had driven into London several times the previous year. He pointed out TFL’s website said it had tried to contact drivers seen driving in the zone before it came into operation to warn them about the new charge. Yet it had not contacted him.
17. TFL rejected his representation in June 2019. It said his vehicle had travelled in the zone during charging hours. Signs around the zone showed motorists were about to enter it. It was Mr X’s responsibility to note the signs and take appropriate action. It had decided not to use its discretion to cancel the PCN having considered Mr X’s representation. It gave details about payment and appealing to the Tribunal. Mr X paid the fine.
18. In June 2019 Mr X complained to TFL that its rejection had not dealt with the main grounds of his representation which was about it not warning him about the zone. He had travelled in the zone several times in the past year. It had not sent him a warning. TFL replied in July setting out the publicity it had given about the zone’s introduction. Mr X complained again in July that it has still not explained why it had not contacted him with a warning. He sent a follow up letter in September to say TFL had not replied to his further complaint.
19. TFL responded in September apologising for delay in replying to the further complaint. It set out the action it had taken to publicise the zone including with signs and advertising. Mr X replied in October to say TFL had still not dealt with his point about it failing to warn him before introducing the charge.
20. In October 2019 TFL sent Mr X a further, final letter. It said he was responsible for knowing about the charge. It had publicised the charges before and after their launch. It referred Mr X to the Ombudsman. Mr X then complained to us.

My findings

21. Mr X travelled in the ULEZ without paying the necessary charge to travel in that area with his vehicle. There was no fault in TFL’s decision to issue him with a PCN.
22. Mr X’s representation about his PCN did not meet any of the defined grounds for challenge. TFL therefore considered whether to use discretion in his case. Because Mr X’s challenge was that he did not know about the ULEZ, it was entitled to decide not to use discretion to consider his representation. When TFL rejected Mr X’s representations he had a right of appeal but only on certain grounds. Mr X’s representation for challenge was not any of the reasons set out as a basis for him to appeal.
23. TFL considered Mr X’s subsequent complaint about this matter. It explained how it had publicised the zone and what it had done to publicise the change and alert road users. It did not directly address Mr X’s point that it had not specifically written to warn him about the zone.
24. Whether or not TFL warned Mr X by post, as a road user in London he needed to be aware of relevant charges and rules. TFL’s response to Mr X’s complaint appropriately explained the background to why it does not accept, as mitigation, explanations about not knowing about the ULEZ.
25. TFL did not meet its timescales for responding to all stages of Mr X’s complaint but as this did not cause Mr X significant injustice I will not investigate it further.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in TFL’s decision regarding Mr X’s representation and complaint against its issue of a PCN.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman