The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about two Penalty Charge Notices relating to the Ultra-Low Emission Zone. This is because the complainant appealed to the tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about two Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) he received in relation to the Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). He says the signage was inadequate and he did not know the zone had been extended. He also complains he has been charged the full amount and he was not expecting to get correspondence about the appeal by email. Mr X wants the Authority to cancel the PCNs.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and I read the decisions made by the tribunal. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.
My assessment
The Authority issues a PCN if someone enters the ULEZ in a non-compliant vehicle without paying the ULEZ charge. The PCN is £160 but reduced to £80 if paid within 14 days.
Mr X received two PCNs. He did not pay within 14 days but appealed to the tribunal. The tribunal rejected both appeals and in July directed that Mr X must pay £160, for both fines, within 28 days. The tribunal said the sum would increase if Mr X did not pay.
Mr X says he missed the hearing notification date because it was sent by email and he was expecting a letter. He also says he missed the decision letter for the same reason and he thinks the fine should have been held at £80 for each PCN. Mr X says the total of the two fines has now increased to £480.
The law says we cannot investigate any complaint that has been appealed to the tribunal. Mr X appealed to the tribunal so we have no power to start an investigation. The tribunal decided Mr X must pay £160 for each PCN and warned Mr X the amount may increase if he did not pay within 28 days. I cannot comment on the amount because the tribunal decided the full amount is payable. And, as Mr X did not pay within 28 days, it is correct that each fine has increased. If Mr X continues not to pay the Authority may register each PCN in court and the amount will increase.
Mr X says he missed the appeal date because he was expecting a letter. However, the appeal was administered by London Tribunals, not by the Authority. If Mr X thinks London Tribunals did not administer the appeal process correctly he would need to complain to the Tribunal. But, there is nothing to suggest fault by the Authority.
Final decision
We cannot investigate this complaint because Mr X appealed to the tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman