Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice for non-payment of the Congestion Charge. This is because the law provides a right of appeal to a tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by Transport for London (TFL). He says the PCN should not be valid as TFL’s payment system is not fit for purpose and he already paid the amount due for the Congestion Charge. He also says TFL should not ask for payment as it cancelled the PCN.

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. London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and his correspondence with TFL. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Mr X drove into London and entered the congestion charge zone. On the following day he paid amount due for the charge. However, a few days later he received a PCN from TFL for failure to pay the Congestion Charge. Mr X immediately complained to TFL and provided evidence of his payment. TFL confirmed it had received his complaint and it put enforcement of the PCN on hold.
7. Mr X says in response to his complaint TFL sent him a letter telling him it had cancelled the charge. But he does not have a copy of the letter.
8. TFL then sent a charge certificate notice to Mr X. The notice explained it is sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle when a PCN is not paid and TFL has not received representations within 28 days against it. As Mr X thought the PCN had been cancelled, he complained to TFL again.
9. In response TFL told Mr X it had considered his correspondence. But it said it did not accept his representation because they were received late.
10. Mr X was unhappy with the response and called TFL. He explained he had paid the Congestion Charge and he complained immediately after he received the PCN. TFL told Mr X he had selected his payment to cover the day of his payment, not the day of his travel. It said therefore the issued PCN was valid. It also told Mr X it would not refund the day he paid for as payments are non-refundable.

Assessment

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. If Mr X disputed the PCN it would have been reasonable for him to appeal. The appeals process is free and easy to follow and London Tribunals is better placed to decide whether the PCN was valid.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice for non-payment of the Congestion Charge. This is because the law provides a right of appeal to a tribunal.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman