The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about emission zone penalty charge notices as Mr X had the right to make representations against them to the Authority.
The complaint
Mr X complains Transport for London (TfL) issued him with several penalty charge notices (PCNs) for travelling in an ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) without having paid the charges to do so. Mr X says this has impacted his mental and physical wellbeing.
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 it would be reasonable for the person to have made representations to the Authority against the PCNs and it is unlikely we could change the outcome of the complaint. (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
Mr X says he paid the ULEZ charges, but that TfL did not take his payments and refunded them to his bank account. TfL then issued Mr X with PCNs for travelling in ULEZ zones without having paid the charges.
Parliament has provided an appeal process for motorists to challenge ULEZ PCNs. There are specific grounds of appeal but if these do not apply, TfL can still consider mitigating circumstances and use its discretion to decide whether to cancel PCNs. On receipt of the PCNs, Mr X could have made such representations to TfL, that is, detailing his genuine attempts to pay. Information Mr X has supplied suggests he did not make representations until it was too late to do so.
It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have challenged the PCNs with TfL at the appropriate time and as such, we will not investigate. Additionally, we cannot instruct TfL how to apply its discretion so an investigation would be unlikely to change the outcome, in that regard in any case.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have made representations against the PCNs to TfL at the appropriate time.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman