Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London’s handling of his representations against several penalty charge notices. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by Transport for London.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains Transport for London (TfL) failed to properly consider his representations against several penalty charge notices (PCNs) for driving in the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) without paying the charge. He appealed against the PCNs to London Tribunals but says London Tribunals also failed to consider his appeal properly. He says TfL has now escalated each of the cases and registered them with the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court. In total TfL is now pursuing Mr X for £2,430.

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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Because Mr X has appealed to London Tribunals any complaint about the PCNs themselves or TfL’s handling of Mr X’s representations falls outside our jurisdiction to investigate. We can bring a complaint back within our jurisdiction where we consider an appeal was misconceived and this may apply in Mr X’s case. This is because while Mr X appealed on valid grounds- that there was no charge payable and that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable- his appeal was essentially mitigation and this is not something the Adjudicator can consider.
8. But even if we could say Mr X’s appeal was misconceived I am satisfied we should not investigate his complaint further. This is because TfL’s response to his representations shows it considered whether to use its discretion to cancel the PCNs but decided not to do so. I do not therefore consider there is enough evidence of fault by TfL to warrant further investigation.
9. Mr X also complains that he asked to pay the PCNs in instalments and that he did not receive a response from TfL to his request, however he seems to accept TfL sent one and we could not hold it responsible for any failures in the postal service. He confirms TfL has now registered the cases with the TEC and once it instructs enforcement agents to collect payment from him he may ask the enforcement agents to take payment by instalments. There is no requirement for TfL to agree to this prior to registration with the TEC, as this formalises the debt and provides a legal basis for it to recover payment from him.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by TfL.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman