The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice for not paying the London congestion zone charge. The complainant has suffered injustice that warrants our involvement.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs C, has complained because Transport for London (TfL) issued a penalty charge notice for not paying the London congestion zone charge. She says she had set up an autopayment account before she drove in the charging zone. She also says TfL did not respond to representations she made against the penalty charge notice.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) 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 may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs C and TfL. I have also considered our Assessment Code.
Background
TfL enforces the congestion charging zone and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and associated Regulations. TfL and motorists must follow these procedures.
Mrs C had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice to London Tribunals which is a statutory tribunal. An appeal to London Tribunals is free and relatively easy to use. It is also the way in which Parliament expects people to challenge a penalty charge notice. For these reasons, the restriction I describe in paragraph 3 generally applies.
What happened TfL issued a penalty charge notice to Mrs C because it believed she owned a car driven in the congestion charge without the required fee being paid. .
Mrs C says she wrote to TfL to explain she had set up an autopayment account so it should not have issued the penalty charge notice. She says she did not receive a response.
TfL says the autopayment account was not active n the day it issued the penalty charge notice. It also says it did not receive anything from Mrs C within the 28 day period during which she should have sent representations.
If TfL had taken recovery action, it would have registered the unpaid penalty charge as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. Mrs C could have made a statutory declaration to the TEC that she made representations but received no response. If it accepted the statement, the TEC would have referred the matter to London Tribunals.
Regardless of what happened, TfL has exercised discretion to cancel the penalty charge notice.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint because she has not suffered injustice that warrants our involvement. TfL has cancelled the penalty charge notice without her needing to appeal against it.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman