Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because Transport for London has agreed to cancel the penalty charge notice and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more for Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by Transport for London (TfL) for driving in the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) without paying the charge. She says she challenged the PCN and provided evidence to show the vehicle in the images is not hers, but TfL did not respond.

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)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is part of Northampton County Court. It considers applications from local authorities to pursue payment of unpaid PCNs and from motorists to challenge local authorities’ pursuit of unpaid PCNs.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Authority.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. TfL says it did not receive any response from Miss X to the PCN so it escalated the case and registered it with the TEC. It has however exercised its discretion to consider the information she provided outside the normal appeal window and decided to cancel the PCN.
9. I am satisfied TfL’s actions provide a suitable remedy for the complaint and it is therefore unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more for Miss X.
10. Had Miss X wished to challenge TfL’s escalation of the case without responding to her representations it would have been reasonable for her to use the process provided by the TEC to do so. We will not therefore investigate whether TfL was at fault for its handling of the case before it agreed to cancel the PCN.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more for Miss X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman