The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about several Penalty Charge Notices issued by Transport for London, and its use of enforcement agents to remove his vehicle. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal.
The complaint
Mr X complained about several Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued by Transport for London (TfL) for entering the Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) without paying the charge. He says his vehicle was then seized by enforcement agents. TfL ultimately cancelled the PCNs, as it recognised it had issued them in error, as Mr X’s vehicle is ULEZ-compliant.
Mr X said his medical condition was exacerbated by the stress of the experience, and he suffered financial injustice as he could not work for seven days while his car was impounded. He wants compensation for loss of earnings and the distress he suffered. Mr X told us TfL has not responded to his request for redress through the complaints process.
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 has a right of appeal, reference or review 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 use this right. (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. 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 considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
TfL issued Mr X with six PCNs because its records showed he had driven in the ULEZ, without paying the charge, in a non-ULEZ-compliant vehicle.
The appeals process is free and relatively simple to follow and it gave Mr X 28 days to challenge each of the PCNs to TfL. If TfL refused to cancel them Mr X could then have appealed to London Tribunals.
Mr X did not make representations to TfL about any of the PCNs. In the absence of such challenges, TfL proceeded to issue Charge Certificates, in line with its standard process. When these went unpaid, TfL asked the Traffic Enforcement Centre (County Court) to make orders for recovery of the charges. It then instructed enforcement agents.
The fault Mr X alleges relates to the PCNs themselves. The documentation sent to Mr X by TfL at each stage included information about the correct process to follow to challenge the charges, so Mr X was aware of the appeal process. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal the PCNs at the time, so we will not investigate this.
In addition, we will not investigate how TfL dealt with Mr X’s complaint because it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. In any event, Mr X’s claim for compensation would best be considered by the courts. It is not our role to assess economic losses (such as loss of earnings) and to award compensation in the way the courts can. When we recommend financial remedies, they are often a modest amount whose value is intended to be largely symbolic, rather than purely financial. It is open to Mr X to approach the small claims court.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for him to make representations to TfL and appeal to London Tribunals.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman