The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We cannot investigate the first penalty charge notice (PCN) case and related debt recovery actions because Mr X used his alternative remedy at the County Court’s Traffic Enforcement Centre. Mr X may pay the reissued PCN or make a formal representation against it to Transport for London.
The complaint
Complaint 1: Mr X complains Transport for London took debt recovery action against him for an unpaid penalty charge notice (PCN) which he did not receive. Mr X says the County Court’s Traffic Enforcement Centre has recently cancelled the debt recovery order. Mr X says the problem arose because he drove his vehicle in the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) without paying the daily charge of £13. Mr X says he tried to pay the charge, by computer, but the system was demanding a much higher amount. Mr X says he contacted Transport for London at the time but did not get a reply. He sent further emails and again no reply. Mr X says he felt harassed and stressed by how Transport for London dealt with the matter.
Complaint 2: Mr X complains that following the TEC decision Transport for London has issued a PCN for £80 for the same contravention. Mr X says Transport for London should allow him to pay the original daily charge because of the payment system problem.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal or a government minister or started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered Mr X’s information and discussed the complaint with him by telephone. I have considered the Road User Charging (enforcement and adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001.
My assessment
The Ombudsman cannot investigate the first complaint because Mr X used his legal remedy to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC, see paragraphs 3 and 4). The TEC cancels a debt recovery order and related charges but not the PCN.
Transport for London (TfL) has issued a further PCN for the same contravention of not paying a zonal daily charge. The PCN will explain how Mr X can challenge it. Mr X should have 28 days to make a formal representation which TfL is legally required to reply to within 56 days. If Tfl rejects Mr X’s representation, he may appeal on specified grounds to the adjudicator. If he is within those grounds the complaint will be outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (see paragraph 5). The adjudicator cannot, in this situation, consider whether Tfl has properly considered its discretion to cancel a PCN. Mr X may return to the Ombudsman if he believes Tfl failed to properly consider its discretion/his mitigating circumstances should he make a formal representation.
Final decision
The Ombudsman cannot investigate the first penalty charge notice (PCN) case and related debt recovery actions because Mr X used his alternative remedy at the County Court’s Traffic Enforcement Centre. Mr X may pay the reissued PCN or make a formal representation against it to Transport for London.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman