Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about penalty charge notices issued to Mr X for driving into London’s low emission zone as the notices have been cancelled and there is insufficient remaining injustice caused to Mr X to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Transport for London (TfL) wrongly issued him with several penalty charge notices for driving in the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) when his car was compliant with the emissions standards for free travel. Mr X says he had to spend time lodging appeals and was caused inconvenience when he decided not to drive in the ULEZ. Mr X seeks some recompense for his inconvenience.

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 any alleged fault has not caused significant injustice to the person who complained (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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background

5. The Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging Order 2006 (the Order) requires TfL to maintain a register of compliant and non-chargeable vehicles. A vehicle will only be added to the register if TfL is satisfied it meets the emission standards.
6. At the time Mr X drove into the ULEZ, his vehicle was not entered on to the register and was therefore non-compliant under the scheme. When ULEZ charges were not paid, TfL issued penalty charge notices (PCNs) to Mr X. On receipt of the PCNs, Mr X checked his car details against TfL’s register using its online compliance checker and found that it did not give confirmation that it was compliant.
7. Mr X says that though he knew his vehicle was compliant, he decided not to drive it into the ULEZ and that this caused him inconvenience. Mr X says he also had to spend time lodging appeals against the PCNs.
8. TfL wrote to Mr X sometime after he had appealed to confirm his vehicle was compliant and that it would be taking no further action regarding the PCNs. Mr X remains unhappy though and would like some recompense for his time and trouble and inconvenience.

Back to top

My assessment

9. While I recognise Mr X remains unhappy about having to deal with PCNs he received, they have now been cancelled and I do not consider there is sufficient remaining injustice to him in this regard to justify our further involvement. Unfortunately, a certain amount of time and trouble is unavoidable when challenging PCNs, even ones that may ultimately be found to not be valid, and not something we would seek to remedy in most cases.
10. Parliament has provided an appeal process which essentially provides the remedy for receipt of a PCN and has not made provision for compensation for time and trouble etc. Appeals about PCNs, such as the ones Mr X was issued with, would ultimately be heard by an independent body, London Tribunals. London Tribunals would only award costs against TfL where it could be shown it had acted ‘frivolously’, ‘vexatiously’ or ‘wholly unreasonably’ in bringing or contesting an appeal.
11. I recognise that Mr X chose not to drive in the ULEZ after receiving the PCNs, but this was his choice not to do so and I do not consider there is evidence to support a view that this was as a result of TfL’s fault. TfL’s register is a live database with updates being provided from DVLA, motorists and information TfL obtains from other sources. That it did not have the details of Mr X’s vehicle’s compliance at the time he travelled in London, does not equate to fault and information on its website advises motorists to always check whether charges are applicable before travel in London. Had Mr X carried out such a check, he would have been alerted to the issue and possibly could have avoided the problems he experienced.
12. For these reasons, I do not consider there is evidence to indicate any alleged TfL fault caused Mr X a significant injustice and we will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we will find fault by TfL causing him a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman