LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about emission zone penalty charge notices issued to Mr X. This is because Mr X appealed against them to London Tribunals and as such, this matter is no longer within our legal remit.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Transport for London sign, which Mr X considers misleading. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems with Transport for London’s website, which Miss X says affected her ability to pay the congestion charge and resulted in an unfair penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Authority and we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants.

Summary: Mr X complained about Transport for London’s (TfL) failure to recognise his car as Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) compliant and resulting charges. He said this caused significant frustration and financial loss. We found TfL to be at fault. To remedy the injustice to Mr X, TfL has agreed to apologise, ensure all charges are refunded and pay him £300. It will also take action to ensure a similar situation does not reoccur.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice issued to a blue badge holder. This is because the complainant appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for an alleged road charging scheme contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Mr B to make formal representations, and if needed, appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about taxi licensing because the complaint is late without good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now and it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to have appealed to the court about the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about low emission zone penalty charge notices as they have been cancelled and there is insufficient remaining injustice caused to the complainant to warrant our further involvement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about TfL overcharging Mr X for travel. This is because the events complained about took place more than 12 months ago. There is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. Mr X used his statutory right of appeal to London Tribunals, and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the peripheral matters to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because Mrs X has used her right of appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s handling of two penalty charge notices. This is because the authority has now cancelled the notices and this provides a suitable remedy for Mr X.

We have found Transport for London’s (TfL) operation of its vehicle scrappage schemes failed to: be open, accountable and transparent about its process for handling applications to these schemes; and follow a proper process for making, and publicising, changes to the schemes’ terms and conditions and their operation. This has caused uncertainty and misled the public about the way it administers and determines applications to these schemes.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London’s handling of his representations against a penalty charge notice. This is because Transport for London has cancelled the penalty charge notice and refunded Mr X’s payment and it is unlikely we could achieve anything more for him.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ultra Low Emission Zone charges. This is because there is not significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because Mrs Y has already appealed to the London Tribunals about the same matter and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a damage claim as it reasonable to expect Mrs X to take court action for the compensation she seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s enforcement agents recovering Mr X’s motor vehicle, following a nonpayment of penalty charge notices. Any complaint about that is now late and I have not seen any good reason why it could not have been made sooner. Additionally, the injustice to Mr X, caused by him not immediately receiving money he was due, after his vehicle was sold, has already been adequately remedied by the Authority. There are no wider public interest issues remaining to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because Miss X has paid the penalty charge notice at the discounted rate of £90 and this amount is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how Transport for London handled her disputed congestion charges. This is because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s monitoring of traffic patterns following a road re-design. This is because we are unlikely to achieve an outcome which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice he received for an alleged moving traffic contravention. This is because Mr B put in an appeal to London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a tree near the train network. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.