Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because Mr Y can reasonably be expected to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Authority did not respond to his appeal and then increased the penalty amount for a Penalty Charge Notice. He says the appeal was later rejected but feels the points raised were not addressed.
2. Mr Y says this has caused him upset and worry as well as financial strain.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal 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 appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
6. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Authority issued a PCN to Mr Y in October 2022 for driving in the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). Mr Y says he submitted his appeal in time, at the end of October. He says he then contacted the Authority and was told there was no record of his appeal in December 2022, by which time the amount had increased to £240. He then received a second PCN in December and resubmitted his initial appeal. He says he then complained after receiving a third PCN in January 2023.
9. Mr Y says he thinks the penalty amount should have been paused at the point he initially appealed and in his view it is unfair that it was increased when he says he submitted it in good time. He says he has paid £17.50 towards the cost of entering the ULEZ and has now offered to pay the remaining £62.50 to settle the penalty amount at the original level.
10. The Authority responded in February, saying it had considered Mr Y’s appeal to have been made outside of the time limits, but had considered whether it should consider the appeal anyway. It said it had not found any mitigating reasons to do this. It rejected Mr Y’s representations, saying that the ULEZ had been clearly signposted and Mr Y had been reasonably aware of the charges before entering. Mr Y then approached us in March.

Analysis

11. While Mr Y may disagree with the fairness of the penalty increases, it is the Authority’s policy is to continue to increase the amounts of the PCN at certain time points such as after 14 days, if the penalty remains unpaid. As the Authority has followed its policy it is unlikely we would find fault in its actions to increase the penalty while Mr Y appealed. We will not investigate this complaint.
12. Mr Y has a right to appeal the PCN further to the London Tribunals if he wishes. The London Tribunals can consider how the Authority dealt with Mr Y’s appeal, and whether it followed the correct process in considering his representations. If it finds that it did not consider the representations properly, it can then consider the issues Mr Y has raised as the reasons why the PCN is either invalid or should not be enforced.
13. Usually, a person must make an appeal to the tribunal within 28 days of a Notice of Rejection to representations being issued. Mrs Y may therefore need to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre once a charge certificate is issued by the Authority to seek permission to appeal to the London Tribunals after the deadline. However, this would be something which Mr Y may wish to approach the London Tribunals to confirm.
14. The London Tribunals is usually free in the initial stages and can make reasonable adjustments if necessary. While Mr Y may feel he does not have time to do this, this is not a reason for us to investigate where he has access to an appeal right. It also does not make it unreasonable for him to be expected to use this right. I would therefore consider it reasonable for Mr Y to use his right of appeal. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because he can reasonably be expected to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and then the London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman