Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s issue and handling of three penalty charge notices for contraventions of the ultra-low emission zone scheme. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) including the process for issuing and escalating penalty charge notices (PCNs) and the effectiveness of the scheme. Transport for London (TfL) issued Mrs X three PCNs for driving in the ULEZ without paying the charge and Mrs X missed the deadline for paying these at the discounted rate of £90 each. She has now paid £270 but TfL is demanding an additional £360. Mrs X believes this is disproportionate to the amount of the actual charge and that TfL should have written to notify her of the need to pay the ULEZ charge before issuing PCNs. She says she is unable to pay the amount TfL says she owes.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. It is clear Mrs X fundamentally disagrees with the ULEZ and the process for issuing and pursuing payment for PCNs but this is not evidence of fault by TfL. TfL issued Mrs X PCNs for driving in the ULEZ without paying the charge and it was under no obligation to remind her to pay before doing so.
5. Mrs X appealed against the PCNs, arguing that no charge was payable under the scheme, but her appeal was considered and dismissed by London Tribunals who then directed her to pay the PCNs. Its decision clearly stated Mrs X had 14 days to pay at the discounted rate after which the PCNs would increase to the full rate of £180 per PCN (£540 total). If she still did not pay the charges would increase by a further 50%.
6. Mrs X paid TfL £270 but this was outside the 14 day period so her payment did not settle the debt. TfL therefore escalated the cases further and Mrs X says she owes a further £360.
7. It is not for us to comment on the effectiveness of the ULEZ scheme, the statutory process for issuing PCNs or the charges payable under the relevant legislation. TfL has acted properly and in accordance with the legislation and we cannot therefore say its actions amount to fault. Depending on the current status of the PCNs Mrs X may be able to ask TfL or its enforcement agents (bailiffs) to enter into a payment arrangement for any amount outstanding.

Back to top

Final decision

8. 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