Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Authority will not transfer liability of an emission zone penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the London Traffic Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr X owns a hire company and complains the Authority issued several Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) to his business. He says he provided the hirers’ details, but the Authority rejected the hire agreements because they lacked clear start and end dates. He says he has tried to dispute the PCNs since 2024, but the Authority delayed its responses for 12 months, handled his complaint poorly, and failed to give him guidance on how to challenge the matter. He seeks an independent investigation, recommendations for lawful and prompt action, and a hold on enforcement during the investigation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X submitted representations for all three PCNs. The Authority rejected them on the basis the hire agreements did not meet the legal requirements to transfer liability. In its Notice of Rejection, the Authority advised Mr X of this right to appeal to the London Traffic Tribunals. Mr X continued to dispute the matter, and the Authority then exercised its discretion to cancel two PCNs, leaving one remaining payable.
8. We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X had a statutory right of appeal to the London Traffic Tribunal and it would have been reasonable for him to use this right. Any delay in the Authority responding did not prevent Mr X from appealing within the legal time limits, but he chose not to pursue that option.
9. We will not investigate the alleged delays in responses or complaint handling because it is not a good use of public resources to consider complaint handling alone when we are not investigating the substantive issue. In any event, the complaints process does not provide an alternative route to dispute PCNs instead of using statutory appeal rights. We will not investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the London Traffic Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman