Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about five penalty charge notices. This is because Mrs X is not registered as the owner/registered keeper of the vehicle and is not therefore liable for the penalty charge notices. If the owner had wished to challenge the penalty charge notices it would have been reasonable for them to appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains about five penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued by Transport for London (TfL) for entering the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) without paying the charge. She says her car is brand new and complies with the emissions standards so she does not have to pay the ULEZ charge. She is also unhappy TfL has failed to respond to her concerns about the PCNs.

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 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

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. 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)
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 Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The owner/registered keeper of a vehicle is liable to pay any charges due from driving in the ULEZ along with any PCNs issued for non-payment. They also have the right to appeal against any PCNs that may be issued.
8. Mrs X is not listed as the owner/registered keeper of the vehicle but she says she has authorisation from the owner to discuss any PCNs with TfL. She is therefore unhappy that TfL has refused to respond to her correspondence about the PCNs and that she has been charged £450 for them.
9. While I appreciate Mrs X is unhappy about the PCNs and believes TfL should not have issued them, she is not directly liable to pay the penalty charges. The injustice she claims is not therefore the result of the issue of the PCNs but of the agreement she has to indemnify the owner. This is a separate agreement to which TfL is not a party.
10. Had the owner wished to challenge the PCNs it would have been reasonable for them to appeal. Mrs X does not have this right but she could have asked the owner to apply to transfer liability to her so that she may appeal. The complaints process does not provide an alternative means to challenge PCNs and it remains the case that any injustice from the PCNs is to the owner of the vehicle, not to Mrs X.
11. Mrs X is also unhappy with the way TfL dealt with her complaints. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mrs X is not liable for the PCNs and if the owner wished to challenge them it would have been reasonable for them to appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman