Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the authority or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains Transport for London (TfL) issued him a penalty charge notice (PCN) for driving in the congestion charge zone. He says he tried to pay the congestion charge online but he could not do so due to an error with TfL’s website. He made representations against the PCN to TfL but TfL refused them, so he paid £90 to settle the case. He says the issue caused him financial distress and made his anxiety worse. He wants TfL to allow him to pay the original congestion charge and refund the remainder of his payment for the PCN.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X drove his vehicle in the congestion charge zone without paying the charge. It was not therefore fault for TfL to issue him a PCN.
6. There is an appeals process for dealing with disputes about PCNs and the first stage of an appeal is to make representations to the issuing authority. Mr X followed this stage and is unhappy TfL refused his representations. But it is clear from TfL’s response that it considered the grounds Mr X put forward and we could not therefore find fault in its handling of the representations.
7. Mr X had the option to appeal against the PCN but did not do so; instead he paid the PCN at the discounted rate of £90. This is £72.50 more than the congestion charge itself and this amount is not significant enough to warrant investigation.
8. I appreciate Mr X suffered some distress at the issue of the PCN but as above I cannot say this was the result of any fault by TfL. In any event Mr X had until midnight of the third day after driving in the congestion charge zone to pay the charge and was not limited to making payment via TfL’s website. I do not therefore consider he was prevented from paying the charge within the relevant period, even if there was an issue with its website.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by TfL or to show its actions, whether fault or not, caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman