Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices and a vehicle’s compliance with emissions standards, as we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Authority issuing the Penalty Charge Notices.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Authority wrongly issued her Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) for driving in an Ultra-Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ). She said her vehicle is ULEZ-compliant but the Authority had not replied to her evidence of this. She said she wanted it to update its records and refund the penalties she had paid. She also wanted the Authority to compensate her for loss of income due to stress.

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 impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X received three PCNs in early 2023, after her bank had suspended payments and her autopay service for the ULEZ fee had stopped. She appealed to the Authority. It issued a notice of rejection to Ms X, explaining the PCNs had been issued correctly as the ULEZ fee had not been paid. The Authority attached evidence it had written to Ms X three times when her payment had not been successful. Ms X subsequently also incurred costs for enforcement action related to the PCNs, and her vehicle was seized in late 2023.
6. Ms X provided evidence to the Authority in early 2024 that her vehicle was compliant with the emissions standards and should have been exempt from paying the ULEZ fee. She then complained to us, saying the Authority had not responded. Since then, the Authority has updated its records to show her vehicle is ULEZ-compliant, and refunded all ULEZ charges and payments she made to the enforcement agency.
7. Ms X had asked the Authority to also compensate her for costs associated with her car having been seized, and loss of income due to the stress of the matter.
8. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Authority having issued the PCNs in 2023. On the evidence it had at the time, the vehicle was non-compliant and the ULEZ fee had not been paid. It is also not fault for the Authority to have instructed enforcement action, as the penalty remained unpaid and not appealed.
9. While the Authority has refunded Ms X the costs of the penalties, ULEZ charges and enforcement action, this does not appear to be because of any fault in it issuing the PCNs in the first place. We can only recommend remedial action where the consequences for a person were due to fault in the body’s actions. We could not achieve the outcomes Ms X seeks as we would have no basis to recommend the Authority pays her for other knock-on impacts.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault, and we could not therefore achieve a meaningful outcome for Ms X by investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman