Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a low emission zone penalty charge notice as the injustice claimed by the complainant does not arise directly from any authority fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Transport for London (TfL) will not reimburse him costs he incurred in seeking professional assistance to appeal against a penalty charge notice (PCN) to London Tribunals. Mr X also wants TfL to cancel other PCNs issued at the time and to refund any payments made to it by other motorists in this regard.

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 any fault has not caused the claimed injustice to the person who complained (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X was issued with a PCN after being diverted into a low emission zone due to a planned diversion on the M25 motorway. Mr X complains TfL wrongly rejected his challenge to the PCN as, he says, the TfL officer dealing with his case checked the wrong IT system for diversions. Mr X sought professional assistance to appeal the PCN to London Tribunals. Mr X’s appeal was not contested by TfL.
7. Mr X says TfL should never have issued the PCN to him, due to the planned road diversion, and that had it properly considered his challenge to the PCN, he would not have had to appeal to London Tribunals. As such, Mr X considers TfL should meet his costs. Mr X says an information request to TfL revealed that other similar PCNs were issued. Mr X says TfL should cancel these.
8. I recognise that Mr X remains dissatisfied, but the appeal process is free and open to anyone to use. It was Mr X’s personal choice to obtain professional help to mount his appeal and we could not say that those costs arose directly from any TfL fault. As such, we could not recommend TfL make any payment to Mr X in this regard.
9. We would expect other motorists issued with similar PCNs to follow the statutory appeal process to challenge them, should they wish to do that, and so we would not investigate those cases.
10. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this case as the injustice Mr X claims does not arise from any TfL fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman