Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London’s handling of his appeals. This is because Transport for London has provided a suitable remedy for the injustice Mr X claims.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the way Transport for London (TfL) handled his appeals against two penalty charge notices (PCNs) for driving in the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) without paying the charge. He says TfL arranged his appeals to London Tribunals at a time when it would cost him more to attend and he lost one day’s pay to put forward his case, which had no prospect of success. He also complains TfL increased the amount of the PCNs and did not respond to his complaint.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and TfL.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. London Tribunals has dismissed Mr X’s appeals against the PCNs and ordered Mr X to pay the fines. It confirmed TfL would accept £80 per PCN if paid within 14 days but Mr X did not pay the full amount owed. The full amount of £320 therefore became payable. Mr X believes TfL wasted his time by processing his appeal when he did not meet any of the prescribed appeal grounds and by allowing him to attend the hearing in person. He says he had to pay £19.50 to attend the appeal and lost a day’s pay.
6. There is no fault by TfL in allowing Mr X to appeal to London Tribunals and it was Mr X’s choice to attend the hearing in person. TfL has now agreed to accept payment at the original ULEZ charging rate and this provides a suitable remedy for the injustice he claims.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because TfL has provided a suitable remedy for the injustice Mr X claims and it is unlikely we would recommend anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman