Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about two penalty charge notices issued by Transport for London. This is because Mr X has appealed against one of the penalty charge notices and had a right of appeal against the second which it would have been reasonable for him to use. Transport for London has agreed to refund his payments and Mr X confirms he has received £180 back from the authority. Transport for London is working with Mr X to locate the second refund and it is unlikely we could achieve anything more for Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about two penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued by Transport for London (TfL) for driving in the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) without paying the charge. He has recently found out his scooter is compliant with the emissions standards and he does not therefore need to pay the ULEZ charge. He wants TfL to refund his payments totalling £260.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Authority.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. TfL has accepted the information provided by Mr X and it has therefore cancelled the PCNs and refunded Mr X’s payments. Mr X says he has received a refund of £180 for one PCN but has not received a refund for the other PCN, which he paid at the discounted rate of £80.
9. TfL continues to work with Mr X to resolve the issue with the second refund and we could not achieve anything more for Mr X by investigating the complaint.
10. We cannot in any event investigate any complaint about the issue of the PCNs themselves. This is because he appealed to London Tribunals against the first PCN and had a right of appeal against the second PCN which it would have been reasonable for him to use.
11. Further, the amount of the refund is not significant enough to warrant investigation and we would not recommend compensation for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot look at any complaint about the issue of the PCNs and it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X by investigating his complaint about TfL’s failure to refund the second PCN. The injustice Mr X claims is also not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman