Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s handling of the complainant’s Ultra Low Emission Zone grace period application and her appeals against associated penalty charge notices. We are unlikely to achieve a better outcome than that already provided by the Authority.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Authority’s handling of her Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) grace period application and its handling of her appeals against associated penalty charge notices (PCNs).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can investigate 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization, or
• we are satisfied with the actions the organisation has already taken.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Authority.
4. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In response to our enquiries, the Authority explained London Travelwatch had already made it aware of Miss X’s case. Whilst the Authority remained satisfied that the 78 PCNs had been correctly issued, it agreed to cancel them and make any necessary refunds, as a gesture of good will.
6. The Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve a better outcome for Miss X so, we will not start an investigation into her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because our further involvement is unlikely to achieve a better outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman