Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the issue of the penalty charge notice or the way Transport for London handled Ms X’s representations against it.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by Transport for London (TfL) for driving in the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) without paying the charge. She believes she provided sufficient evidence to allow TfL to cancel the PCN but it has refused to do so.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Authority.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. London Tribunals deals with appeals against PCNs issued in London. Where we decide it is not reasonable for a person to use their right of appeal, and if someone complains the authority failed to properly consider their reasons as to why the PCN should be cancelled, we may consider whether there is evidence of fault in its handling of the case.
6. Ms X accepts she made an error as she paid the congestion charge rather than the ULEZ charge after driving in the ULEZ. There cannot therefore be fault by TfL in issuing the PCN as the contravention clearly occurred.
7. Ms X made representations against the PCN explaining she had paid the congestion charge in error. She provided a screenshot of her payment but TfL could not identify the payment from this so it asked for further information. Ms X responded to the request but TfL says she did not provide the evidence it needed, so it rejected her representations. It advised Ms X of her right of appeal but Ms X did use this or pay the PCN, so TfL escalated the case and registered it with the court. The case is now with its enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover payment from Ms X.
8. Because TfL clearly considered the information Ms X provided we could not say it was at fault for its handling of her representations against the PCN.
9. While Ms X believes TfL should have cancelled the PCN, this is a decision for TfL; we are not an appeal body and do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. TfL was entitled to reject Ms X’s representations and I have seen no evidence of fault affecting its decision. It has however agreed to contact Ms X again for further information which may allow it to identify the payment with a view to reconsidering her case. When it does this Ms X should provide any information TfL asks for. It will then be for TfL to decide whether there are grounds to cancel the PCN or take it back to an earlier stage.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by TfL.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman