Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about penalty charge notices for non-payment of the London congestion charging and Ultra Low Emission Zone charges. There is a right of appeal against the penalty charge notices and the keeper of the vehicle has asked a court to restore that right.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained about how Transport for London (TfL) dealt with penalty charge notices issued for non-payment of the congestion and Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) charges.

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 can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The law also says we cannot investigate a complaint when someone has sought a remedy in court; we have no discretion in this. The courts have decided this restriction applies even if the court could not provide a remedy for all the claimed injustice. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint and discussed it with him.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. TfL enforces the congestion charging zone and ULEZ and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and associated Regulations. TfL and motorists must follow these procedures, although TfL has discretion not to pursue a penalty charge if it believes there are good reasons for this.
7. In law, the owner of a vehicle is responsible for any penalty charges regardless of who was driving at the time of the contravention. This is most often the person registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) as the keeper of the vehicle. Enforcement authorities will initially send any formal documents using keeper details provided by the DVLA.
8. The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 require the owner of a vehicle to immediately inform the DVLA of any change of address. It is an offence under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 to use a vehicle where the correct address is not held by the DVLA.
9. There is a right of appeal against penalty charge notices issued by TfL to London Tribunals which is a statutory tribunal. An appeal to London Tribunals is free and relatively easy to use. It is also the way in which Parliament expects people to challenge a penalty charge notice. For these reasons, the restriction I describe in paragraph 3 generally applies.

Analysis

10. Mr B says he paid the required charge by phone but received a penalty charge notice for driving in the congestion charge zone. The penalty charge was £160 although TfL could accept £80 within 14 days.
11. Mr B tried to challenge the penalty charge notice but the issue was complicated because he is not the registered keeper. TfL began to take recovery action but agreed to accept the discounted amount of £80 from Mr B.
12. Mr B was unaware there was a second penalty charge notice for not paying the congestion zone and ULEZ charges. He says TfL should have told him about this when he challenged the first penalty charge notice. Regardless of this, the keeper of the vehicle has now submitted a statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. This has not yet been considered by the TEC.
13. If the TEC accepts the statutory declaration, TfL must refer the matter to an adjudicator at London Tribunals. The restriction I describe in paragraph 3 would apply.
14. If the TEC does not accept the statement, we could not investigate the keeper has sought a remedy in court. They could ask a District Judge at their local county court to review the TEC’s da ecision, but we have no jurisdiction to question the TEC’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because the keeper of the vehicle has a right of appeal to a tribunal and has asked a court to restore that right.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman