Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s handling of ultra-low emission zone penalty charge notices as it is unlikely we will find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Transport for London (TfL) did not cancel penalty charge notices (PCN) it had issued to him for driving in its ultra-low emissions zone (ULEZ) without paying the charge, despite Mr X explaining to TfL that he thought he had paid but it transpired he had used a ‘scam’ website.

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))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X appealed to London Tribunals against the PCNs, but it explained it could not consider the mitigating circumstances Mr X presented, that is, he paid the charge but unbeknownst to him, using a fraudulent website. The Tribunal decision indicated though that TfL had considered the discretion it has to cancel PCNs on mitigating circumstances but that it had decided not to exercise that discretion in Mr X’s case.
7. TfL was entitled to come to this decision and we cannot be critical of it, unless there was fault in the way it considered the matter. While I recognise Mr X disputes the decision this does not equate to TfL fault and is not grounds for us to challenge its decision.
8. For this reason, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we will find fault by TfL.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman