Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s handling of Mrs X’s representations against a penalty charge notice. This is because Transport for London has agreed to cancel the penalty charge notice and this provides a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains Transport for London (TfL) refused to consider her representations against a penalty charge notice (PCN) because it did not accept she owned the vehicle. She also disputes the PCN as she says she paid the charge for driving in the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ).
2. Mrs X says the incident has had a significant impact on her mental health. She wants a formal apology, financial compensation and service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and Transport for London.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X does not dispute that she was liable for paying the ULEZ charge. She says she paid the charge, but the bank delayed in processing the payment. She believes this led to the PCN and she wanted TfL to issue her a ‘notice of rejection’ so she could appeal.
7. However, TfL refused to consider Mrs X’s representations because it considered her a third party. She says this prevented her from appealing and impacted her mental and physical health.
8. TfL says it considered Mrs X a third party because the information it received from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) provided a different spelling of her name and Mrs X did not respond to its requests for clarification. It has apologised for its delay in dealing with Mrs X’s complaint and agreed to cancel the PCN as a gesture of goodwill.
9. It has also clarified that the reason for the PCN was unrelated to any delay in processing Mrs X’s payment. Rather, it notes Mrs X paid the ULEZ for 3 November 2025 but drove in the ULEZ on 4 November 2025. Mrs X’s grounds of appeal therefore amount to mitigation which London Tribunals cannot consider.
10. I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy with the way TfL dealt with her case but its agreement to cancel the PCN is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X and it is therefore unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more for Mrs X.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because TfL has provided her with a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman