Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Authority has wrongly issued and pursued Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) for entering the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) despite him purchasing a vehicle which he checked, using the Authority’s vehicle checker, was compliant and would not be charged. Mr Y is also unhappy with the lack of response to his complaint against various PCNs from the Authority.
2. Mr Y says this has caused him upset and worry, which has in turn meant he felt he had to sell the vehicle at a loss. He says he does not understand why he is liable for the PCNs given the steps he followed to ensure his vehicle was compliant.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. When Mr Y purchased his vehicle, he confirmed it would be compliant within the ULEZ and he would not need to pay a charge. After purchase he changed his registration plate to a personalised registration plate. Following this he received several PCNs.
6. The Authority’s website includes information about private and personalised number plates. In its guidance it says you should “check your vehicle before you drive in London”. It then continues to explain drivers may need to provide evidence of the plate transfer if they believe their vehicle is compliant and refers to updating the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency.
7. While Mr Y did check his vehicle, with its original number plate, was compliant, it is possible the personalised number plate was still registered to a previous vehicle which was not compliant within the ULEZ.
8. Further, Mr Y’s correspondence confirms the Authority was able to confirm the vehicle registration plate was the issue when Mr Y contacted them to complain, suggesting Mr Y had not at this stage provided evidence to the Authority that his vehicle was compliant after he had changed the number plate on it. As he had not done this, it is unlikely we would find fault with the Authority issuing the PCNs. Consequently, we will not investigate as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
9. Mr Y has also confirmed he has paid the PCNs, rather than appealing beyond the Authority’s processes, to the London Tribunals. If Mr Y felt his vehicle should not have received the penalties and should have been exempt, it is for him as the driver and recipient of the PCNs to challenge this.
10. In deciding not to appeal and paying the penalty, Mr Y has legally accepted his liability for the penalty and the validity of the PCNs. As he has accepted its validity, it is unlikely we would now find fault in the Authority’s enforcement of the PCN. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman