LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: Mr X complained about the way Transport for London (TfL) handled his application to its vehicle scrappage scheme. We found TfL at fault because it wrongly rejected Mr X’s application and delayed responding to his complaints. TfL has acknowledged the fault and offered a suitable remedy.

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 an accident for which Mrs X is claiming compensation for personal injury. This is because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for the Ultra Low Emission Zone because we are satisfied with the actions the Authority has taken, and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Transport for London’s handling of her representations against a penalty charge notice. This is because Transport for London has agreed to cancel the PCN and it is unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an ultra-low emission zone penalty charge notice as it is unlikely we will find fault and we cannot give Mr X the outcome he wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because Transport for London has agreed to cancel the notice and it is unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more for Ms X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices because we are satisfied with the actions the Authority has taken and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr B complained that Transport for London delayed in responding to his grant application. We find Transport for London at fault for a delay in providing Mr B with the outcome of his application and for providing inconsistent reasons for refusing his application. This caused Mr B uncertainty and frustration. Transport for London agreed to apologise to Mr B to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that his car was damaged by a pothole. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to pursue his compensation claim by taking Transport for London (TFL) to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the road user charges imposed on Mr X’s vehicle as it is unlikely we will find fault by the Authority.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an exemption for a motorbike from the Ultra Low Emission Zone daily charge. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a taxi vehicle licence. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice for driving in the ultra-low emission zone without paying the charge. This is because London Tribunals has considered Mr X’s appeal against the penalty charge notice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about taxi licensing because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to approach the courts about the matter, who are better placed than us to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about taxi licensing because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking and the court is better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a private hire license application because Mr Y has already started court action about the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a bus penalty fare as Miss X could have appealed against it.

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 that the Authority has blocked a device used for paying for transport on the network. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London. This is because Transport for London has agreed to cancel the penalty charge notice and this provides a suitable remedy for the complaint. It is therefore unlikely further investigation would achieve anything more for Ms X.

Summary: We will use our discretion not to investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for the Ultra Low Emission because the Authority has cancelled the fine.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because Transport for London has agreed to cancel the notice and refund Mrs X's payment and this provides a suitable remedy for the complaint.

Summary: We will use our discretion not to investigate this complaint about a Penalty Fare because the complainant appealed to the Independent Appeal Service.