Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for entering the Ultra Low Emission Zone because the Authority has cancelled the fine. Regarding the Authority’s failure to make reasonable adjustments, it has upheld the complaint and has agreed to remedy Mr Y’s injustice by apologising, making Mr Y a payment and putting in place a service improvement. Further investigation by us would therefore not be proportionate.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about Transport for London’s (TfL) handling of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for driving in the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) without paying the charge. He complains TfL failed to adhere to disability-related reasonable adjustments, which made communication difficult.
2. Mr Y complains about TfL’s complaint handling. He says he chased TfL for a response several times and TfL put the complaint on hold while it responded to his subject access request.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In early April 2025, TfL sent Mr Y a PCN for driving in the ULEZ without paying the charge.
7. In late April, after considering Mr Y’s representations, TfL exercised discretion and cancelled the PCN. It sent Mr Y a Notice of Acceptance confirming this. The substantive injustice to Mr Y in this complaint was the PCN. The cancelling of the PCN provides a suitable remedy for the complaint and I am satisfied any remaining injustice, which Mr Y claims lies in TfL’s failure to make reasonable adjustments and issues with TfL’s complaints handling, is not significant enough to justify investigation or any further remedy.
8. Further, during its complaints process, TfL accepted it failed to follow its own procedure around considering Mr Y’s requests for reasonable adjustments. TfL apologised for this, offered Mr Y a payment of £100 in recognition of the distress caused and made a suitable service improvement to prevent the same thing happening again. Further investigation by us would not be proportionate.
9. So, we will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for entering the Ultra Low Emission Zone because the Authority has cancelled the fine. Regarding the Authority’s failure to make reasonable adjustments, it has upheld the complaint and has agreed to remedy Mr Y’s injustice by apologising, making Mr Y a payment and putting in place a service improvement. Further investigation by us would therefore not be proportionate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman