LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled penalty charge notices. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals. Therefore his complaint is outside of our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about private hire license renewal because the court is better placed to consider the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the authority will not pay Mr X for his scrapped vehicle under its ultra-low emission zone scrappage scheme as it is unlikely we will find fault by the authority.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about emission zone charges. There is insufficient remaining injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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 cannot investigate this complaint about Penalty Charges Notices. This is because the complainant has already appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the extended Ultra Low Emission Zone is unfair to motorists like him. This is because an investigation would not achieve the outcome Mr B seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London. This is because it would have been reasonable for Miss X to make formal representations to the Authority and appeal to London Tribunals.

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.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s ‘auto-pay’ service. This is because investigation is unlikely to achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X. Transport for London has refunded Mr X for a charge made in error and the further injustice Mr X describes is entirely speculative. Transport for London has followed its published policies and the terms and conditions for the service, which provide sufficient opportunity for motorists to dispute charges, and if Mr X considers it is unfit for purpose he does not have to use it.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for a road charging scheme contravention. This is because it was reasonable for Ms X to appeal to the London Tribunals.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the issues Mr X has encountered on the bus. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to provide a worthwhile outcome for him.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about TfL’s failure to reimburse Miss X for travel costs incurred whilst waiting for a new freedom pass. This is because TfL has already addressed any injustice Miss X experienced due to this matter in its complaint’s response.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the problems Mr X has experienced attempting to cross the ticket barriers at his local station. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because Mr Y has already appealed to the London Tribunals.

Summary: Miss D complains TFL incorrectly changed the status of her vehicle to non ULEZ compliant and delayed responding to her complaint. There is fault in respect of complaint handling but no fault regarding the compliance issue. TFL has already offered a reasonable remedy to Miss D for the complaint handling.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice for a road charging contravention. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s refusal to refund Mr X’s payments for driving in the ultra-low emission zone since 2022. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by Transport for London in making the charges. The Authority accepts it wrongly awarded Mr X an exemption from paying the charge, but this did not cause Mr X injustice.

Summary: The Authority delayed processing Mr X’s private hire driver’s licence application for over two years. It was also at fault in its communications with Mr X. This caused Mr X uncertainty and frustration, put him to time and trouble, and delayed his ability to work in his chosen job. The Authority agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a symbolic payment to him, and take action to improve its services.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Authority issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) because the Authority cancelled the PCN and an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

Summary: Mr X complained Transport for London delayed in renewing his private hire driver’s licence which left him unable to work. There is no fault in the way the Transport for London considered Mr X’s application to renew his private hire driver’s licence. It renewed his licence in line with its policies and procedures.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about TfL’s management of his application to its now closed scrappage scheme. This is because the complaint concerns events that took place more than 12 months ago; there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate them now.

Summary: Mr B complained about Transport for London’s decision that his vehicle is not exempt from the ULEZ charge. He believes its decision is unreasonable and he has not had access to an independent right of appeal. We found no fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about TfL’s decision to serve Mrs X with a penalty charge notice. This is because she had right of appeal to the London Tribunals, and she has used it.