Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is reasonable to expect Ms Y to appeal to the London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complained the Authority wrongly issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to her despite her not owning the vehicle since it was stolen in 2016. She is also unhappy with the way the Authority has dealt with her representations and complaint.
2. Ms Y says the problem has caused her upset and worry.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal about the same matter. 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 considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Ms Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms Y’s car was stolen in 2016. In 2017, Mrs Y’s car insurer paid her the value of the vehicle as it had not been found. The car was later recovered and returned to the insurer in 2022. As the insurer had paid Mrs Y’s claim, it became the vehicle owners. It later sold the vehicle to a third party.
8. In 2022, Ms Y began to receive letters from the Authority for a PCN for driving in the Authority’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) without making payment. Ms Y says she has made representations to the Authority, explaining that she no longer owns the vehicle, but has been asked to provide further information before her representations could be accepted. Ms Y says she complained to the Authority but did not receive a response. Ms Y then approached us in November.

Analysis

9. Ms Y has a right to appeal any Penalty Charge Notices she receives from the Authority to the London Tribunals. One of the grounds of appeal is that she was not the owner of the vehicle when the contravention occurred.
10. This is often free and reasonable adjustments can be made where necessary for access to the service. Consequently, as Ms Y has not provided any other reason why she cannot, it is reasonable to expect Ms Y to use this right to appeal. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
11. As we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Authority dealt with Ms Y’s complaint, so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Ms Y to appeal to the London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman