Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London’s issue of penalty charge notices for non-payment of the ultra-low emission zone charge. This is because Transport for London has cancelled the penalty charge notices and updated its records to show Mr X’s vehicle is compliant and if he receives any further fines it would be reasonable for him to appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains Transport for London (TfL) wrongly issued him two penalty charge notices (PCNs) for driving in the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) without paying the charge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review 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 use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and TfL.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X received a PCN for driving in the ULEZ without paying the charge. He challenged the PCN and TfL cancelled it. Mr X then sold the vehicle and bought a new one, which he says is the same model, and TfL has issued him another PCN for the same contravention. Mr X made representations against the second PCN and TfL has now cancelled it.
8. TfL’s ‘notice of acceptance’ confirms Mr X’s vehicle meets the ULEZ standards and says it has updated its records to reflect this. Mr X should not therefore receive any further PCNs and there is no suggestion he has. In any event the appeals process is the proper route to challenge a PCN and if TfL refuses to accept Mr X’s representations Mr X may appeal to London Tribunals, who may decide to make an award for costs if it considers TfL has acted unreasonably.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because investigation would not achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X. TfL has cancelled the PCNs and updated its records and if TfL issues him more PCNs it would be reasonable for him to appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman