Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Authority issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to him when he followed a diversion during an unexpected road closure and has now asked him to provide evidence of the diversion.
2. Mr Y says he has contacted various bodies, including the Ministry of Transport, but feels it is unfair that he has received the penalty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Authority issued a PCN when Mr Y drove into the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in December 2022. Mr Y says he was following a diversion after the road he had intended to take was closed.
8. Mr Y says he made representations to the Authority in January 2023, but the Authority told him it had no record of the diversion and it will not cancel the PCN without further evidence. It has then asked him to provide evidence of the diversion as part of his representations against the PCN.
9. Mr Y says that the Authority should not ask him to provide evidence because hundreds of cars were being diverted at the time and it is unfair for him to be asked to provide evidence which is not easily available to him. Mr Y approached us in March.

Analysis

10. The Authority is not required to hold or keep records of all road diversions within the ULEZ. In many cases, roads will be closed or diverted by other bodies, such as local councils or the emergency services without notification to this Authority. Consequently, we would not expect the Authority to always be aware of such a diversion when a PCN may be issued and would be unlikely to find fault if it did not have records of this.
11. When a PCN is issued, there is an onus on the person receiving it to either pay it or make representations against it. Here the Authority has considered the representations made and asked Mr Y to provide further evidence for its consideration to see if there are mitigating circumstances and strengthen his representations. If Mr Y is unable to provide this, then the Authority would need to form a view based on the information available to it.
12. As the Authority is considering its discretion, by asking Mr Y to provide more information, it is unlikely we would find fault in its request for evidence of the diversion. Consequently, we will not investigate.
13. If Mr Y’s representations are then rejected by the Authority, he can appeal the matter to the London Tribunals. This is often free in the initial stages and reasonable adjustments can be made where necessary for access to the service.
14. As Mr Y has not provided any other reason why he cannot, it is reasonable to expect him to use his right to appeal if he is unhappy with the outcome of the Authority’s consideration of his representations. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault and it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman