The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice issued for a non-payment of the Ultra Low Emission Zone charge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.
The complaint
Ms X complains about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) that the Authority issued after she drove a lease hire care into the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ). Ms X says the Authority should refund the lease hire company as she paid the ULEZ charge to a third-party company.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We 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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X drove into London in a lease hire car which was eligible for the ULEZ charge. She said she made a payment for the charge through a third-party website. No payment was forwarded from the website to TfL and so a PCN was issued to the lease hire company, which paid the charge and invoiced Ms X the charge plus an admin fee.
Ms X contacted TfL and said she wanted her money back, providing a copy of a bank statement showing that money had been paid to a third party ULEZ company. The Authority considered Ms X’s representations and her supporting evidence but found that insufficient evidence had been provided to show that the ULEZ charge had been paid for the vehicle subject to the PCN and on the day in question.
The PCN paid by the lease hire company were not issued to Ms X and any injustice she claims from them stem from her contract with the lease hire company. Her contract with the company should set out who is liable for any PCNs issued during the lease period and by hiring the vehicle from the company Ms X agreed to be bound by its terms. If Ms X believes the hire company was wrong to pay the PCN this is a matter for Ms X to raise with them. TfL has no involvement in the relationship between Ms X and the lease hire company.
I will not investigate how TfL considered Ms X’s representations regarding the PCN. TfL fully considered the information provided and concluded it was insufficient to prove that payment of the relevant ULEZ charge had been made. There is insufficient evidence of fault by TfL who considered Ms X’s representations in accordance with its policy. Whilst I do sympathise that Ms X appears to have made payment through a fraudulent third-party website, we cannot say that TfL are to blame for this.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman