Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London’s handling of his challenges to two penalty charge notices. This is because Transport for London has provided a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about Transport for London’s handling of his challenge to two penalty charge notices (PCNs). He is unhappy Transport for London (TfL) refused his representations against the PCN and increased the amount owed as a result of his unsuccessful appeal to London Tribunals.

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. If we are satisfied with the authority’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)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, TfL’s responses and the appeal decision. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. TfL issued Mr X two PCNs for driving in the Ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) without paying the charge in December 2019. Mr X made representations against the PCNs but TfL declined to cancel them.
6. Mr X said it was a dark night and he did not see any signs about the ULEZ as he was driving. He offered to pay the daily charge of £12.50 but did not feel he should pay the penalty charges which at that point were at the discounted rate of £80 per PCN.
7. TfL considered these points but explained there are signs at the points where vehicles enter the ULEZ and it is the motorist’s responsibility to make themselves aware of the charging zones and to comply with any restrictions or tolls that my exist along their route.
8. TfL’s Notice of Rejection confirmed the PCNs remained at £80 each and that Mr X should pay or appeal to London Tribunals within 28 days. It explained that after 28 days it may issue a Charge Certificate, increasing the amount of the charge “by 50% of the original amount.”
9. Mr X appealed to London Tribunals but due to a backlog, London Tribunals took several months to consider the appeal. When it did, it decided Mr X challenge raised only issues of mitigation, which it could not accept. Its decision confirmed Mr X must pay the PCNs at the full rate of £160 per PCN.
10. Mr X is unhappy TfL advised him he could appeal to London Tribunals when it could not consider the basis of his challenge. He is also unhappy that TfL increased the amount of the PCNs as a result of his appeal.
11. TfL’s Notice of Rejection addressed the points raised in Mr X’s representations and its decision not to cancel the PCNs is a matter of professional judgement. The Notice explained Mr X “may appeal to a Road User Charging Adjudicator at London Tribunals, an independent adjudication service, against this decision on specified grounds within 28 days of the date of service of this letter.”
12. The grounds for appeal against PCNs for road user charging contraventions are set out on London Tribunals’ website and do not include ‘mitigating circumstances’. Therefore Mr X could or should have been aware his appeal did not fall under one of the specified grounds before referring the matter to London Tribunals. That he decided to proceed with the appeal was his choice.
13. TfL’s Notice of Rejection stated “The amounts owed are listed at the foot of this notice. Please note these Notices at the discounted amount should be paid within 14 days to qualify for the discounted sum. These Notices will increase if not paid and then the full amount per Notice should be paid within 28 days.”
14. TfL says it did not receive notification of Mr X’s appeal from London Tribunals until more than 14 days had passed since its Notice of Rejection. The PCNs therefore reverted to the full amounts of £160 each.

Back to top

Agreed remedy

15. In response to our enquiries, TfL has agreed to reduce the amount of the PCNs to £80 each; this means it will refund Mr X £160 in total. TfL’s offer provides a suitable remedy for the complaint and it is unlikely we would recommend anything more. TfL should ensure it refunds Mr X within six weeks of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because TfL has provided a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman