Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the handling of an emissions zone certification. We could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants and he could take the matter to court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that his vehicle was wrongly seized and sold.
2. Mr X said it caused distress and financial loss.
3. Mr X wanted compensation for the loss of the vehicle.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and Transport for London.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Vehicles travelling within a low emissions zone are required to either meet a set of emissions standards or make payment if they do not. If a payment is not made for a vehicle that requires it, Transport for London can issue a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
10. Transport for London will send the PCN to the person who appears to own the vehicle by post. The notice will show the fine amount and how to appeal. The owner then has 28 days from the date of the notice to pay the fine or ‘make representations’ against it.
11. If the fine is not paid, Transport for London can register the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court. Transport for London can then ask enforcement agents to collect payment for the fine.
12. Mr X owned a vehicle that did not meet the required emissions standards. Mr X had applied to Transport for London for his vehicle to be compliant with emissions standards. Mr X received several PCN’s for the vehicle during this time.
13. When Mr X did not make payment for the PCN’s, Transport for London followed its process to collect the debt by instructing Enforcement Agents to collect on its behalf.
14. Mr X complained to the London Mayors office about Transport for London and said they should have considered his vehicle as compliant. He also complained about the behaviour of the Enforcement Agents.
15. The Enforcement Agents gave notice and attended Mr X’s property asking for payment in full. Mr X said he could not make the payment so the vehicle was removed. It was later sold at auction.
16. In its response, Transport for London said it did not accept Mr X’s evidence that the vehicle was compliant. Though as a gesture of goodwill recognised the vehicle as compliant for the ULEZ. As the vehicle had been auctioned there was no way to return it.
17. Mr X said the value of the car was greater than the value it was sold for and now wanted compensation. Transport for London cancelled the debt it said he owed.
18. We will not investigate this complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. I have considered our guidance on remedies and the amount requested is beyond what we may recommend in this instance
19. Mr X may bring the matter to a court as only a court may award compensation. It is reasonable to expect that he could take the matter to a court. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he may bring the matter to a court and it is reasonable to expect he do so.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome he wants and it is reasonable to expect that he could take the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman