Transport for London (24 006 817)

Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 09 Sep 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an ultra-low emission zone penalty charge notice as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have followed the appeal procedure provided in law to challenge it.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains he was unfairly issued a penalty charge notice (PCN) for entering an ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) when he says he was not aware that he needed to pay a charge to do this. Mr X is unhappy as the PCN doubled in cost. Mr X wants Transport for London (TfL) to make sure signage and information provided to motorists is sufficient to enable them to stay within the rules.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Parliament has provided a statutory appeal process, ultimately to independent adjudicators at London Tribunals, by which Mr X could have challenged the PCN and raised his concerns about warning signage etc. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have used this procedure as it is the lawful process to make such challenges. We do not have the powers of the adjudicators to decide whether inadequate signage means that a PCN should be cancelled. We will not therefore investigate.
  2. After receiving a notice from TfL rejecting the representations he made against the PCN, Mr X had the choice of paying the PCN at the reduced amount or appealing to the Tribunal. Having not taken either of these options, the cost of the PCN doubled. This is not fault by the Council but is the process set out in law.
  3. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had the right to appeal the PCN to London Tribunals and it is reasonable to expect him to have done so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings