The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about ULEZ penalty charges. We cannot consider matters that were for the adjudicator to decide on appeal. There was no fault in Transport for London (TfL) increasing the charges. It would be disproportionate to investigate now TfL’s decision-making about how Mr X should pay, including the instalments. It is not our role to question the merits of the ULEZ scheme or to change its rules.
The complaint
Mr X complains about Transport for London’s (TfL’s) handling of penalty charges he incurred for driving in the London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) without paying. He says this caused stress and financial hardship for him and his family.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London, including appeals about ULEZ penalty charges.
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, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (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
The restriction in paragraph 2 prevents us considering any of the appeal grounds Mr X put to the adjudicator, or could have put to the adjudicator, about whether he should pay the penalty charges.
Therefore, our starting point is that there was no fault in TfL expecting Mr X to pay the charges, including any increase in the charges from not paying on time. Mr X complains about how much the charges increased. He says this is ‘extortionate.’ Those increases were in line with the ULEZ scheme rules. So there was no fault in TfL demanding those payments.
When Mr X said he could not afford to pay the costs in one payment, TfL considered information about Mr X’s circumstances and said Mr X could pay in instalments. I see no fault with that, in principle. It is unclear exactly how TfL calculated this particular instalment arrangement would be suitable, or what passed between Mr X and TfL between the arrangement starting (July 2023) and Mr X first contacting us (October 2023). However, I consider it would be disproportionate to devote time and public money to investigating those points now. This is because Mr X has finished paying the costs, so it is unlikely we could achieve anything significantly worthwhile now in terms of the instalments Mr X was paying. I also note TfL repaid Mr X £160 (half of the £320 he had paid) as a goodwill gesture.
Mr X questions the nature and claimed benefits of the ULEZ scheme. However, that scheme was lawfully introduced. The Ombudsman has no power to question it. Mr X also says the Ombudsman should intervene “for all the public” to cap the level of increased costs TfL recovers related to unpaid ULEZ charges, which he considers excessive, and to change the timescales in which such costs increase. The Ombudsman has no such power.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. We cannot consider matters that were for the appeal. There was no fault in TfL increasing the charges. It would be disproportionate to investigate now TfL’s decision-making about how Mr X should pay, including the instalments. It is not our role to question the merits of the ULEZ scheme or to change its rules.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman