Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about several penalty charge notices issued by Transport for London. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains about several penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued by Transport for London (TfL) for entering the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) without paying the charge. Mrs X disputes the PCNs as she says she paid the charge for the relevant dates. She says she is unable to pay the PCNs so TfL has escalated the cases and instructed enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover payment from her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. TfL issued Mrs X PCNs because its records showed she had driven in the ULEZ without paying the charge. If Mrs X had disputed the PCNs it would have been reasonable for her to appeal.
7. The appeals process is free and relatively simple to follow and it gave Mrs X 28 days to challenge the PCNs to TfL. If TfL refused to cancel them Mrs X could have appealed to London Tribunals.
8. Mrs X appealed outside this time limit and TfL therefore declined to consider her representations, as it was entitled to. Its letter gave Mrs X 14 days to provide any new information regarding the delay, or to pay the PCNs. Mrs X says she cannot afford to pay so TfL’s escalation of the cases is inevitable. But this is not the result of any fault by TfL. The fault Mrs X claims relates to the issue of the PCNs themselves and as set out above I consider it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to make representations to TfL and appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman