Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because Mrs Y has already appealed to the London Tribunals about the same matter and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained the Authority (TfL) has refused to cancel a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) after Mrs Y accidentally paid an incorrect website for entrance to the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) rather than to TfL, even though money for payment was later transferred to TfL.
2. Mrs Y says she feels the PCN was unfair as she only paid incorrectly due to trouble accessing her TfL account and feels she had no malice in not paying the charge directly to TfL.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered information Mrs Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs Y appealed the issuing of the PCN to the London Tribunals. This was on the basis that she paid the website she used £35 for payment for the ULEZ and intended to pay TfL for the ULEZ charge. TfL told the tribunals that although it received some of the payment Mrs Y had made on the third-party website, this was not on the time required for the dates she entered the ULEZ and so effectively no payment had been made.
8. The London Tribunals refused Mrs Y’s appeal. The decision explained that TfL considered the circumstances in this case but did not wish to exercise its discretion in the matter and instead said that the payment was received to allow entry to the ULEZ on a different date, and consequently as no payment for the correct dates had been received, it felt the PCN should not be cancelled.
9. As TfL considered the circumstances, and its discretion in the pursuit of the PCN, even though it decided against using its discretion to waive the PCN and cancel the charges, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. We will not investigate this.
10. Further, as the London Tribunals has already considered the matter, we cannot investigate the same issue regarding the use of the third-party website to pay the ULEZ charges and the issuing of the PCN. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because Mrs Y has already appealed to the London Tribunals about the same matter and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman