The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about penalty charge notices issued for non-payment of the ultra-low emission zone charge. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way Transport for London considered the complainant’s representations, and it has proposed a gesture of good will which is a satisfactory way to address the complaint.
The complaint
Mr X complains Transport for London (TfL) refused to cancel 16 penalty charge notices (PCNs) he received for entering the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) and to allow him to pay the daily charge instead. He says he thought he had set up an account to automatically pay the charge, and didn’t realise it had not been activated.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We can investigate 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or we are satisfied with the action an organization proposes to take.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B)) With reference to the first bullet point above, we can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and TfL.
I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X received 16 PCNs for entering the ULEZ without paying the daily charge. He submitted representations to TfL, but these were refused. Mr X did not then pay the charges at the discounted rate, and they eventually increased to £279 per PCN.
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr X disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
TfL considered the mitigating circumstances presented by Mr X in his representations, and explained its reasons for deciding not to cancel the PCNs. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it took the decision, so the Ombudsman cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
Notwithstanding this conclusion, TfL has offered, as a gesture of goodwill, to reduce the amount payable for each PCN back to £90 (a total of £1440) and refund the remainder of what Mr X has already paid. In the circumstances, I consider this to be a very reasonable offer, and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything further.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way TfL considered his representations, and it has proposed action which provides a satisfactory outcome to the matter.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman