The Ombudsman's final decision
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.
The complaint
Mr X complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by Transport for London (TfL) for driving in the ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) without paying the charge. Mr X says he was the owner of the vehicle when the contraventions occurred, so he is not liable for the PCNs.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X states he was not the owner of the vehicle at the time it was driven in the ULEZ without paying the charge and is not therefore responsible for the PCNs. He says he challenged the PCNs with TfL and sent information with evidence, but it refused to accept this challenges.
Mr X had the right to appeal this rejection to London Tribunals. London Tribunals was set up specifically to deal with disputes about PCNs issued within Greater London and if it found in Mr X’s favour it could have ordered TfL to cancel the PCNs.
I have seen no good reasons why Mr X could not have appealed to London Tribunals, and I will not therefore exercise my discretion to investigate the complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to London Tribunals.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman