Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London’s failure to advise whether he had driven in the congestion charge zone. This is because it was Mr X’s responsibility to keep track of his journey and to pay the congestion charge. There is not enough evidence of fault by Transport for London or to show its actions caused Mr X’s injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains Transport for London (TfL) failed to confirm whether he had driven in the congestion charge zone. He says that as a result he received a penalty charge notice (PCN). He believes TfL’s actions amount to entrapment and is unhappy that instead of paying the £17.50 charge he has had to pay £90.

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 the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. It is Mr X’s responsibility as a motorist to keep track of whether he entered the congestion charge zone and whether he needs to pay the charge. It is not for TfL to advise Mr X whether he entered the zone and its systems do not provide any means for it to access this information until the end of the period for payment of the charge.
7. It was also Mr X’s decision not to pay the charge and this is the cause of the injustice he now claims; had he felt there was a likelihood he had driven in the congestion charge zone he could still have paid the charge and this would have limited his costs to £17.50 rather than the penalty charge of £90.
8. If Mr X believed TfL’s signs were unclear about whether he had entered the congestion charge zone it would have been reasonable for him to appeal against the PCN on these grounds.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is the injustice Mr X claims is not the result of any fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman