Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice for a London congestion zone contravention. The keeper of the car involved had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice. We are unlikely to find evidence of other fault in how Transport for London has dealt with the matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, received a penalty charge notice from Transport for London (TfL) for driving in the London congestion charging zone without paying the required charge.
2. Mr X’s father, Mr Y, has complained on his behalf. He says he was driving the car at the time and so TfL should transfer liability to him and stop taking recovery action against Mr X.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered what Mr Y said in his complaint on behalf of Mr X.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. TfL enforces the congestion charging zone and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and associated Regulations. TfL and motorists must follow these procedures.
8. In law, the owner of a vehicle is responsible for any penalty charges regardless of who was driving at the time of the contravention. This is most often the person registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) as the keeper of the vehicle. Enforcement authorities will initially send any formal documents using keeper details provided by the DVLA.
9. The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 require the owner of a vehicle to immediately inform the DVLA of any change of address. It is an offence under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 to use a vehicle where the correct address is not held by the DVLA.
10. Mr X had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice to London Tribunals which is a statutory tribunal. An appeal to London Tribunals is free and relatively easy to use. It is also the way in which Parliament expects people to challenge a penalty charge notice. For these reasons, the restriction I describe in paragraph 4 generally applies.

Summary of events

11. TfL observed a car in the congestion zone for which no charge had been paid. It obtained details from the DVLA which showed Mr X as the keeper. It sent a penalty charge notice to Mr X at the address provided by the DVLA.
12. Mr Y says he was driving at the time and asked TfL to transfer liability to him but it has explained this is not possible. This is because Mr X, not Mr Y, is liable in law for the penalty charge.
13. TfL considered representations against the penalty charge notice but did not accept them. It sent Mr X a ‘notice of rejection of representations’ which explained how he could appeal to London Tribunals.
14. As Mr X did not pay the penalty charge or appeal against it, TfL has continued recovery action. If Mr X does not pay the penalty charge, TfL can register it as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. It can then use bailiffs to collect the debt, and their own fees, from Mr X.

Analysis

15. We will not look at a complaint about the penalty charge notice itself because Mr X had a right of appeal to London Tribunals. I have seen no reason he could not have used that right.
16. I have seen no evidence of fault by TfL in pursuing Mr X for the unpaid penalty charge. Mr X is liable in law even though Mr Y may have been driving and TfL has acted in accordance with the Regulations.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint for the reasons set out in paragraphs 15 and 16.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman