Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London for non-payment of the ultra-low emission zone charge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by Transport for London.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by Transport for London (TfL) for driving in the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) without paying the charge. He says he appealed against the PCN on 24 January 2024 but did not receive a response.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. Motorists whose vehicles do not meet the relevant emissions standards must pay a charge when driving in the ULEZ.
5. Mr X opened an online account with TfL to pay the ULEZ charge but did not properly complete his application. He did not therefore pay the charge when he drove in the ULEZ, so TfL issued him a PCN. There is no fault in the issue of the PCN as Mr X’s vehicle does not meet the emissions standards and he did not pay the charge. The contravention therefore clearly occurred.
6. I appreciate Mr X had problems opening his online account and completing the application process but this is not the result of any fault by TfL. It was Mr X’s responsibility to ensure he paid the ULEZ charge and we cannot hold TfL responsible for his non-payment.
7. Mr X says he appealed against the PCN but did not receive a response, however the information he has provided shows he did not appeal within the relevant timeframe and only sought to challenge the PCN after TfL had escalated the case to the next stage, which involved issuing him a ‘charge certificate’. He had also already paid the PCN and surcharge before he made his appeal.
8. When a motorist pays a PCN the authority must close the case and is not expected to take any further action in respect of it. I do not therefore consider TfL's failure to respond to Mr X’s letter amounts to fault or that we would recommend any remedy for it. Had Mr X wished to challenge the PCN he should have done so in response to the ‘notice to owner’.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by TfL.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman