Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the Traffic Enforcement Centre and London Tribunals are better placed to consider the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Authority has wrongly pursued him for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), which he believes was a duplicate, after he drove in the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) despite cancelling the initial PCN.
2. Mr Y says this has caused him upset and worry and he has been asked to pay £834 to bailiffs, despite having paid a charge when he drove into the zone.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review 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 use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Authority issued two PCNs to Mr Y for driving without payment in December 2023 on the date at the same time. Mr Y wrote to the Authority to make representations, that he had paid the charge to enter the zone through a third-party company. The Authority used its discretion to cancel the PCN Mr Y had made representations about. Mr Y was unaware that there were two PCNs, and thought the letters were for the same PCN and had therefore only made representations for one of the PCNs.
8. Consequently, the second PCN, for the same date and time as the now cancelled PCN, was pursued by the Authority. Mr Y the made representations against the second PCN, explaining the issue and referring to the cancellation of the previous PCN. However, as this was made outside of the timeframe for the Authority to consider representations against the second PCN the appeal was rejected by the Authority. The second PCN then continued to progress.
9. Mr Y then contacted the Traffic Enforcement Centre, after a letter from bailiffs about the debt, which had increased to £834. The Traffic Enforcement Centre responded to tell Mr Y that a debt was not registered under the reference numbers for either PCN, although in the letter to say this in July 2024 the TEC appears to have included an incorrect reference number, which is a single digit different to the correct one. Mr Y then approached us.

Analysis

10. Mr Y has a right to submit a statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), asking it to remove the charge certificate for the PCN. This process was set out, with reference to the correct forms in the letter of July 2024. Given the previous issue which may have occurred as in paragraph 9, it may be beneficial for Mr Y to confirm the reference number in his correspondence with the TEC and explain why he is now contacting them again.
11. If the TEC accepts Mr Y’s application it can take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the PCN and reinstating Mr Y’s right of appeal against it to the Authority initially and then the London Tribunals. Mr Y can then decide if he wishes to appeal the PCN or pay the penalty.
12. This is often free in the initial stages and reasonable adjustments can be made where necessary for access to the service. Consequently, as Mr Y has not provided any other reason why he cannot, it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to use his right to appeal. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
13. Further, the tribunal has been set up for the purpose of considering the type of issues Mr Y has raised and has the power itself to cancel the PCN if warranted. It is therefore better placed than the Ombudsman, who can only ask the Council to consider cancelling the PCN, to consider this complaint. We will therefore not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the Traffic Enforcement Centre and London Tribunals are better placed to consider the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman