Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s issue and pursuit of payment for penalty charge notices issued for contraventions of its ‘low emission zone’ scheme. This is because Mr X had a right of appeal against any penalty charge notices which it would have been reasonable for him to use. He has also started court action against Transport for London in relation to the issue.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Transport for London (TfL) has continued to issue him penalty charge notices (PCNs) relating to the ‘low emission zone’ (LEZ) and to escalate and enforce existing PCNs relating to the LEZ despite a ruling by London Tribunals that his vehicle is not subject to the scheme.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

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. While London Tribunals found in Mr X’s favour on one LEZ PCN case its decision specifically stated Mr X “should note these findings and decision are based on an assessment of the evidence… relating to this PCN. It is not a decision that is binding on other adjudicators… or a decision on compliance or non-compliance in relation to the vehicle and the LEZ Scheme.”
8. It is therefore incorrect to claim the decision prevents TfL from issuing further PCNs or requires it to cancel or pause any further action in respect of PCNs it has already issued. Mr X has or had a right of appeal against any PCNs issued by TfL and if he disputed them it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals as he did with the case referred to above.
9. Further, Mr X says he has applied to the High Court for an injunction to prevent any further enforcement by TfL and this amounts to the start of court action on the same point Mr X has asked us to consider. His complaint therefore falls outside our jurisdiction as set out at Paragraph 5.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X had a right of appeal against any PCNs issued by TfL which it would have been reasonable for him to use. He has also taken court action to address the issue at the heart of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman