Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Ultra-Low Emission Zone. It is unlikely we would find fault by Transport for London and his injustice lies in a penalty charge notice issued for non-payment. If Mr X disputed this it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). He says the signs warning of the ULEZ are inadequate and there is no reminder for motorists to pay the charge the following day. He entered the ULEZ without paying the charge and Transport for London (TfL) issued him a penalty charge notice (PCN).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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)
4. London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, shared my draft decision with him and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X entered the ULEZ in 2019 without paying the £12.50 daily charge. He says there was a family emergency and he did not remember to pay the charge. Because Mr X contravened the ULEZ scheme rules TfL issued him a PCN.
7. There is a set procedure TfL must follow when pursuing PCNs for non-payment of the ULEZ charge. When TfL identifies a contravention it will issue a PCN to the owner/registered keeper by post. This will detail the amount of the fine and the motorist’s right of appeal, firstly to the council itself and then to London Tribunals. TfL will send the PCN to the address of the registered keeper, as held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).
8. Mr X does not dispute the contravention but believes TfL should have reminded him of the need to pay the charge. He wishes to pay the daily charge rather than the PCN.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. It is for any motorist entering the ULEZ to ensure they pay the relevant charge. There is no requirement for TfL to remind motorists to pay and it is not fault for it to issue PCNs to motorists who fail to do so.
10. Mr X made representations against the PCN and the evidence shows TfL properly considered the points he made and told him how to appeal further; this is in accordance with the process and is not fault. If Mr X disputed TfL’s response and wished to pursue the matter it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by TfL and if Mr X believed the signs were inadequate it would have been reasonable for him to appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman