Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

Transport for London

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Other Reference 22-010-878 Sector Transport And Highways Category Parking And Other Penalties Decided 25 November 2022

View Transport for London scorecard

Full decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London. This is because Mr X has used the alternative remedy available to him; the complaint therefore falls outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

The complainant, Mr X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by Transport for London (TfL) for an ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) contravention. He contests the fact that he was in London on the date of the contravention and says he has received no letters from TfL about the 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 can appeal to a tribunal about the same matter. 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) London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court but cannot investigate if the person has already applied to a court to consider the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

How I considered this complaint

I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

It is not our role to consider appeals against the validity of PCNs issued by TfL; such appeals are a matter for London Tribunals.

Mr X says he was unable to appeal as he received no letters from TfL about the PCN. He has therefore applied to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court to challenge TfL’s escalation of the case by making a late statutory declaration.

Because Mr X has made an application to the TEC his complaint falls outside our jurisdiction as set out at Paragraph 5.

Mr X should await the TEC’s decision on his case before deciding how to proceed. If the TEC allows his application it will order TfL to take the case back to an earlier stage, reinstating Mr X’s right of appeal. It would then be reasonable for Mr X to follow the statutory appeals process, if he continues to dispute the contravention. If the TEC refuses Mr X’s application Mr X may apply for a review of its decision.

Final decision

We cannot investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has used his right to apply to the TEC to make a late statutory declaration.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving Transport for London

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-013-058 Other
25-022-808 Other
25-022-027 Other
25-020-343 Other
25-028-120 Other
View all decisions for this organisation