Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Transport for London’s handling of her representations against a penalty charge notice. This is because Transport for London has agreed to cancel the PCN and it is unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains Transport for London (TfL) failed to properly consider her representations against a penalty charge notice (PCN) for non-payment of the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) charge. She says she has a disability which affected her ability to pay but TfL refused to cancel 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 Mrs X and the Authority.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. London Tribunals deals with appeals against PCNs issued by TfL but can only consider the grounds of appeal set out in the relevant legislation for the type of contravention concerned. Where TfL issues a PCN for non-payment of the ULEZ London Tribunals can only look at whether the contravention occurred. It cannot consider mitigating circumstances such as those claimed by Mrs X.
6. TfL is not bound by the same restrictions and must consider any representations it receives, including where the sole basis of those representations is a claim of mitigation such as in Mrs X’s case.
7. Mrs X says TfL failed to consider her mitigating circumstances but she has provided a copy of its rejection of her representations and this addresses the points she raised and explains the reasons it will not exercise its discretion to cancel the PCN. Because TfL considered the points Mrs X raised it is unlikely we would find fault in its handling of her representations.
8. However, in response to our enquiries TfL has agreed to cancel the PCN as a gesture of goodwill and will refund Mrs X’s payment of £90. This provides a suitable outcome for the complaint and it is unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because TfL has agreed to cancel the PCN and refund Mrs X’s payment and it is unlikely we could achieve anything more for Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman