Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an ultra-low emission zone penalty charge notice as it is unlikely we will find fault and we cannot give Mr X the outcome he wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Authority sent bailiffs to his home regarding an unpaid ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) penalty charge notice.
2. Mr X said that he sold the car before the penalty charge notice was issued. Mr X said this has caused him distress that has affected his wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. If a motorist does not pay the right fee for using certain roads they might get a fine. This fine is called a Penalty Charge Notice.
8. The authority will send the notice to the person who appears to own the vehicle (usually the registered keeper) by post. The notice will show the fine amount and how to appeal.

The fine is usually halved if is paid within 14 days.

The authority can issue a charge certificate which increases the fine by 50% if:

• the fine is not paid;
• the motorist does not appeal against the fine; or
• an appeal is not successful.

9. If the fine is still not paid, the authority can register the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court. The authority can then ask enforcement agents (bailiffs) to collect payment for the fine and the bailiff’s costs.
10. A car registered to Mr X was issued with an ULEZ penalty charge notice. The Authority sent the penalty charge notice to Mr X’s address.
11. The Authority did not receive any contact from Mr X, so reissued the penalty charge notice with a charge certificate.
12. The Authority did not receive any contact from Mr X so sent the penalty charge notice to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. The Authority also instructed its bailiffs to recover the debt.
13. Mr X then filled out an out of time statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. The Traffic Enforcement Centre accepted that Mr X had not received the penalty charge notice, and returned the issue to the Authority.
14. The Authority reissued the penalty charge notice to Mr X, who told it that he was not the owner of the car and provided evidence to prove this. The Authority accepted Mr X’s appeal and removed him from the penalty charge notice.
15. There is no evidence of fault in how the Authority issued or chased the penalty charge notice.
16. The Authority considered and acted on Mr X’s appeal, and as a result, he was no longer responsible for the penalty charge notice. This action is appropriate.

Hi Rob, I took out any reference to remedy, because we only ever use that word where there is fault. So hence I changed it to say thumbs up to BINJ, it did hat it should have done in the face of updated info.

17. Additionally, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants; we cannot award compensation. Only the courts can do this.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault, and we cannot give him the outcome that he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman