Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of Transport for London and its enforcement agents in pursuing an unpaid penalty charge notice. Mr X has applied to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to challenge the escalation of the case and there are other bodies better placed to consider his concerns about the agents themselves.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains enforcement agents (bailiffs) acting for Transport for London (TfL) took his car and have failed to provide him with full video footage of their actions. He says he challenged the penalty charge notice (PCN) with TfL but did not receive a response.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court but cannot investigate if the person has already been to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the bailiff’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. TfL issued Mr X a PCN which he has not paid. Mr X says he contested the PCN but did not receive a response from TfL. Its bailiffs then attended his property and removed his car. He complains about the bailiffs’ conduct and made a subject access request for the video footage of their visit but says he received only edited clips.
8. The Ombudsman cannot investigate any complaint about TfL’s escalation of the PCN as Mr X has applied to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) to make a late witness statement/statutory declaration. If the TEC has refused Mr X’s application Mr X may request a review; we cannot overturn the decision.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the bailiffs’ response to Mr X’s subject access request as the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider the matter. The Information Commissioner is the expert in matters of data protection and freedom of information and it can decide whether the bailiffs should have released the full video recording to Mr X in response to his request.
10. If Mr X believes the bailiffs’ conduct fell below the required standards, and that they are not fit to practice as bailiffs, Mr X may make a free complaint to the court. The process is free and the courts have powers to suspend or cancel the bailiff’s certificate if they consider they have acted wrongly. This process is more appropriate to deal with Mr X’s concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because his complaint about TfL’s escalation of the PCN falls outside our jurisdiction and there are other bodies better placed to consider his concerns about TfL’s bailiffs.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman