Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about three penalty charge notices as Transport for London has agreed to cancel them and this provides a suitable remedy for the issue. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London’s refusal of his application to its car scrappage scheme as there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains he received three penalty charge notices (PCNs) from Transport for London (TfL) for entering the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) without paying the charge, despite registering his vehicle for a 100% discount. He is unhappy TfL demanded money from him which he did not owe and that it passed the case to enforcement agents who clamped his car. He also complains TfL refused his application for a grant under its car scrappage scheme, which he believes amounts to discrimination, and says the van scrappage scheme is discriminatory towards him. He has demanded TfL pay him £30,000 in damages and threatened court action against the authority if it refuses to pay.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

PCNs

5. TfL accepts Mr X’s car is registered for the 100% discount and it has now cancelled the PCNs. Mr X remains unhappy and believes he is entitled to compensation. He says TfL’s enforcement agents (bailiffs) carried out an illegal visit to his property during which they clamped his car and says this caused him trouble and distress.
6. I am satisfied TfL’s cancellation of the PCNs provides a suitable remedy for this aspect of Mr X’s complaint and we will not therefore investigate this issue further. While Mr X refers to the visit by TfL’s bailiffs the visit followed the issue of correspondence by post to an address provided by the DVLA and it is therefore unlikely we would find fault in its escalation of the case.

Car scrappage scheme

7. Mr X applied to scrap a car which he says is his but which is registered to a third party.
8. TfL accepts the reasons given for refusing Mr X’s application were not strictly correct but it confirms Mr X is not eligible for the grant as he does not meet the terms and conditions for the scheme. These state the applicant must be in receipt of benefits, as Mr X is, but also that they must be the owner/registered keeper of the vehicle and that the vehicle must be registered at their home address. The vehicle Mr X applied to scrap does not meet these criteria and we cannot therefore say TfL was wrong to refuse his application or that any error in the reasons given for the refusal caused him significant injustice and warrants further investigation.

Van scrappage scheme

9. If Mr X believes TfL’s van scrappage scheme or its decision to refuse his application to the car scrappage scheme amounts to discrimination he may wish to seek legal advice. We cannot determine if TfL has discriminated against Mr X as this is a matter for the courts. I have seen nothing specifically that would allow us to challenge TfL on these points.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because TfL’s cancellation of the PCNs provides a suitable remedy for Mr X and there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision to refuse his application to the car scrappage scheme.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman