Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Authority did not contact him about Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) payments not being made after his bank card was compromised, which led to Mr Y not being aware of the issue until enforcement agents contacted him.

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 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y disputes his liability for payment of the penalties incurred after his bank card was compromised and his direct debit for a daily charge to enter the ULEZ was cancelled. He has now paid the penalties after he was contacted by enforcement agents. This is despite his disagreement with them as he believes the Authority ought to have contacted him by another means such as telephone or email to tell him his direct debit was not working.
6. Although Mr Y agrees that he did receive the letters sent by the Authority, containing the Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs), he says he did not take them seriously as they were not correctly addressed to him. If Mr Y has felt that the PCNs were not correctly addressed, it is for him as the driver and recipient of the PCNs to challenge this and raise this issue in the Tribunal.
7. Also, the Authority has received Mr Y’s details as they are registered with the DVLA. It is a driver’s responsibility to ensure that these are correct. Further, it is for the driver to ensure they have paid the ULEZ charges before entering the zone, rather than the Authority’s responsibility to inform a driver if a direct debit is not set up. As it is not the Authority’s role to do this, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.
8. Instead of following guidance contained in the correspondence for appealing, Mr Y paid the penalties after being contacted by enforcement agents. In deciding not to appeal and pay the penalties, Mr Y has legally accepted his liability for them and the validity of the PCNs. As he has accepted their validity, it is unlikely we would now find fault in the Council’s enforcement of the PCNs. As there is not enough evidence of fault to justify doing so, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman