The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that Transport for London failed to reply to his representation against a penalty charge notice. Mr X can reasonably use his legal remedy and challenge the debt recovery order at the County Court’s Traffic Enforcement Centre.
The complaint
Mr X complains Transport for London issued a penalty charge notice in June 2022 for driving in the ultra low emissions zone (ULEZ) without paying. Mr X says the Authority failed to clearly identify where the zone begins. He says there is no signage or road markings.
Mr X complains Transport for London failed to reply to his representations against the PCN sent on 29 June. In September the Authority sent a demand for £240 for the unpaid PCN.
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 could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority. The information includes the notice of rejection dated 26 July.
My assessment
I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons Mr X has a legal remedy at the County Court’s traffic enforcement centre (TEC) on the grounds he did not receive the rejection of his representation (dated 26 July). Transport for London advised Mr X that once he has the TEC’s debt recovery order he can file a statutory declaration challenging it.
I consider it reasonable for Mr X to use his legal remedy. Should the TEC reject his challenge the decision is reviewable by a judge. Mr X says, referring to his employment, ‘I would be more than happy to attend court’.
Where the TEC accepts a challenge it will revoke the debt recovery order which returns the PCN case to an earlier stage. Mr X should then have the right of appeal to the London Tribunals where he can put his argument about poor signage.
Final decision
The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that Transport for London failed to reply to his representation against a penalty charge notice. Mr X can reasonably use his legal remedy and challenge the debt recovery order at the County Court’s Traffic Enforcement Centre.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman