Summary: Miss X complains that TFL wrongly issued Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) for a foreign registered vehicle that was compliant with the Low Emission Zone. She said that despite her appeals TFL increased the fine and threatened enforcement action. We uphold Miss X’s complaint finding fault. TFL already cancelled the outstanding PCNs. We recommend an apology and a financial payment to remedy the injustice caused and action by TFL to resolve the problems that caused these errors.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains on behalf of her partner Mr Y about the way Transport for London (TFL) handled two penalty charge notices for entering the Low Emission Zone without registering his vehicle in advance. Miss X says the cost of the penalty charge notices was too high and that TFL failed to properly advise Mr Y about the process or deal with his concerns.
2. Miss X says the process has been extremely stressful and she has been put to considerable time and trouble trying to resolve the issues.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered the information provided by Miss X in her complaint. I made enquiries of TFL and reviewed the information it provided in response.
6. I provided Miss X and TFL with a copy of my draft decision and invited their comments. I considered the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

7. Miss X complaint concerns Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued to Mr Y for the Low Emissions Zone (LEZ). We would not generally investigate complaints about the validity of individual PCNs. This is because a tribunal exists to specifically consider complaints that PCNs are unwarranted. However, Miss X complained of problems with TFL’s process for PCNs issued to foreign (European) registered vehicles.

TFL Process

8. TFL have a set of emission standards for vehicles in Greater London. If a vehicle meets the standard it can use the area without charge. If a vehicle does not meet the standard the owner can have an abatement device fitted. Otherwise they would need to pay the LEZ charge.
9. For UK registered vehicles TFL uses data provided by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to verify whether a vehicle is subject to the scheme and meets the required emission standards. TFL considers the date the vehicle was first registered and the vehicle weights. If the information is not available via DVLA TFL will seek to obtain it through another organisation.
10. The process for foreign vehicles is different and based on a registration system. The vehicle is registered with TFL by the keeper by providing a copy of the vehicle registration document and/or any other evidence which confirms that the vehicle is compliant with the emission standards. Once registered the vehicle remains compliant and can be used in the zone without payment of the charge or risk of receiving a PCN.
11. If a foreign registered vehicle enters the LEZ and has not been registered with TFL and is non-complaint a PCN will be issued to the registered keeper.
12. The LEZ penalty for foreign vehicles follows the same process as for UK vehicles but issued in the local currency. The LEZ has two tiers of PCNs:

• vehicles weighing between 1.205 and 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight, the penalty is £500, reduced to £250 if paid within 14 days
• vehicles weighing over 3.5 tonnes gross value weight, the penalty is £1000, reduced to £500 if paid within 14 days.

13. If no payment is made a charge certificate is issues increasing the full amount by 50%

What happened

14. The chronology below includes key events and does not cover everything that happened.
15. Mr Y and Miss X drove an unregistered rented EU vehicle through the LEZ zone on 21 January 2019 and 22 January 2019.
16. On 29 August 2019, TFL sent two notifications letters to Mr Y requesting payment of £1000 within ten days. The letters stated that the fine would double if not paid in time. Miss X contacted TFL on 7 September and asked if she could appeal the fine and/or whether it could be reduced.
17. On 9 September, TFL confirmed that the case had been placed on hold pending a review of the appeal. A month later TFL wrote to Mr Y and said it would accept a payment of £500 for each contravention.
18. Miss X challenged the PCNs and said that the vehicle was compliant with the emissions standards. She said that:

• the notifications were sent in French and without specific details of the charge
• she was not aware of charges for driving in a LEZ and therefore unaware that they would have to pre-register the rented vehicle.
• the setup of TFL’s system meant that a rented EU vehicle cannot be registered without a number plate, which is only known on the day that the vehicle is picked up
• Prior to 7 September 2019 they did not receive any notification about the charges, which must have been sent to the hire company
• the vehicle in question weighed 1972kg and therefore did not meet the criteria for paying a charge but they were willing to pay £200 in each case based on the information available on TFL’s website regarding driving an unregistered EU vehicle.

19. On 10 October 2019 TFL wrote to Miss X and Mr Y and said that based on exceptional circumstance it would accept an underpayment of £500 for each case. But this was not an underpayment, this was still a request for the full amount. TFL also failed to acknowledge the evidence provided by Miss X and Mr Y proved the vehicle was complaint with the LEZ regulations.
20. The next day Miss X called TfL and was advised to pay the original amount they thought they owed and appeal against any additional fines. Miss X said she was assured that the cases would be put on hold until the appeal process had been concluded.
21. Miss X made two payments of £200 based on what she understood the fine to be for the unregistered EU vehicle. Miss X appealed the additional fees due to earlier notices going to the rental company. Miss X also said that the process for registering a vehicle under the LEZ scheme could take up to three weeks, and therefore without a number plate this was impossible for a rental vehicle.
22. On 19 November 2019 TFL sent Mr Y a notice of rejection. Mr Y received this letter on 27 November 2019. The letter said his appeal had been rejected and he could either pay the outstanding amount which includes the increased fines at £1000 each or appeal against the PCNs to the Road Charging Adjudicator at the London Tribunals. Any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date of the Notice of Rejection. The letter failed to address any of the issues raised by Miss X.
23. Miss X contacted TFL by telephone and was told that the cases should have been on hold during the appeal process. Miss X was told that they could either pay the amount requested or appeal again. This advice was contradictory to the notice of rejection which advised that an appeal should be made to the independent adjudicator.
24. In her appeal document to London Tribunals Miss X explained the injustice of the increased payments being demanded by TFL. She explained the impact of the situation on her health and wellbeing, causing anxiety and sleepless nights. She explained the frustration that no one at TFL seemed to understand the reasons for her appeal. She also explained the considerable time and effort she had put into trying to resolve the issues with TFL. However, because Miss X was not disputing liability for paying the fees but rather the amount being requested, there was no right of appeal to London Tribunals.
25. On 9 December 2019 TFL wrote to Mr Y informing him that the fees had increased to approximately £1500 (1734.14 euros) for each case. The letter said that failure to make payment would result in enforcement action. The next day, Miss X contacted TFL again. She said she was willing to pay the outstanding payment of £600 from the original fine of £1000 for both cases. TFL did not consider Miss X’s case and advised her of the process for challenging a PCN.
26. Miss X complained to TFL on the 9 January 2020.Two weeks later Mr X received a notice of enforcement action for non-payment of the PCNs.
27. TFL responded to Miss X’s complaint on 31 March 2020. It acknowledged that its handling of the case had been inadequate. It accepted that the responses lacked detail and clarity and the notice of rejection failed to address the fundamental issue of whether the vehicle was compliant with LEZ emission standards. TFL recognised that there had been unnecessary delays in responding to Miss X and significant confusion caused around the acceptance of a reduced payment.
28. TFL cancelled the penalty on the basis that the hire vehicle met LEZ requirements but recognised that this should have been done sooner. It refunded Miss X £400 that she had paid towards the fine and said:

“In terms of our policy; we acknowledge that some motorists visiting the UK from abroad will not be aware of the LEZ registration scheme which is in place for foreign vehicles. We therefore have specific business rules in place which means that if a penalty is issued to a foreign vehicle, and the recipient of the penalty shows the vehicle meets the relevant emission standards, the penalty is cancelled”

29. TFL apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused by the faults and offered a payment of £200 to reflect this. In response to the Ombudsman enquiries, TFL have increased this to £250.

Analysis

30. TFL recognises that some motorists visiting the UK will not be aware of the LEZ registration scheme in place for foreign vehicles. It has a specific policy in place, whereby if a penalty is issued to a foreign vehicle and the recipient shows the vehicle meets the relevant emission standards the penalty is cancelled.
31. There was clear fault in the way that TFL issued PCNs to Mr Y. TFL issued PCN’s to Mr Y at the higher rate because it could not determine whether the vehicle was compliant with LEZ emissions standards, at the point of issue. The appeal process failed to address any of the issues raised by Miss X and failed to request information about the vehicle which presented a missed opportunity to verify whether it was compliant. If it had done so, the PCN’s would have been cancelled much sooner. TFL failed to follow its policy, increased the fees and threatened Mr Y with enforcement action. These failings represent fault by TFL.
32. The faults raise questions about the way TFL manages the administration of the LEZ for foreign registered vehicles and where the vehicle in question is a hire vehicle. A vehicle can only be registered with a number plate and the registration can take up to three weeks. As Miss X identified, this is impossible for hired vehicles and information about the process and what is required is not available on TFL’s website.
33. There was further fault by TFL in its failure to respond to Miss X’s email of 10 December 2019 and directed her back to the PCN appeal process.
34. TFL has cancelled the outstanding PCNs and refunded Miss X £400. It has offered to make a payment of £250 to reflect the distress that this situation has caused. I welcome the action taken by TFL. However, further action is required to remedy the complaint and I have set this out below.

Agreed action

35. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr Y and Miss X, within four weeks of my final decision TFL will:

• apologise to Mr Y and Miss X for the faults identified
• make a payment of £250 for the significant distress this has caused
• make a payment of £100 for the time and trouble taken pursuing the complaint

I also recommend that TFL should:

• review its processes and procedures to prevent a reoccurrence of the problems incurred by Mr Y and Miss X. This should be done within four weeks of my final decision
• explain to the Ombudsman the outcome of the review and the changes it proposes to make to its processes and procedures. This should be done within eight weeks of my final decision.

Final decision

36. I have found fault by TFL causing injustice to Mr Y and Miss X. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman