Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about two penalty charge notices issued by Transport for London because Mr X has appealed against them to London Tribunals. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that Transport for London lost his £25 payment towards the penalty charge notices because the amount is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about two penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued by Transport for London (TfL) for driving in the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) without paying the charge. Mr X has appealed against the PCNs and says he has paid the amount outstanding in full, although TfL has lost his first payment of £25.

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 Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right but cannot investigate if they have already used it. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Because Mr X has appealed against the PCNs we have no jurisdiction to investigate any complaint about them or TfL’s handling of Mr X’s representations. The Adjudicator considered Mr X’s argument that the signs were not sufficient to warn him he had driven in the ULEZ and we cannot overturn their decisions.
8. Mr X says he paid the PCNs in two payments, one for £25 on 15 August and the remaining £533 on 8 November 2023. But he says TfL lost his £25 payment and is therefore still pursuing him for this money.
9. I appreciate Mr X is frustrated that TfL has asked him to pay £25 he says he has already paid, but we only investigate the most serious complaints and £25 is not significant enough to warrant the cost of an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the PCNs because Mr X has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about TfL’s loss of his £25 payment because the amount is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman