Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about Transport for London’s handling of 32 penalty charge notices for congestion charging contraventions. This is because Transport for London has waived more than £6,500 owed by Ms X and this provides a suitable remedy; it is therefore unlikely we would recommend anything further.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about 32 penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued by Transport for London (TfL). She also complains TfL took too long to confirm it had received payment to settle the PCNs and that the matter was closed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an authority has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Ms X’s complaint, made enquiries of TfL and considered its response. I shared my draft decision with Ms X and invited her comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. TfL issued Ms X 32 PCNs for entering the congestion charging zone without paying the fee. Miss X says she relied on incorrect information provided by another resident and because she had moved house, the DVLA provided TfL with her old address details. She did not therefore receive TfL’s correspondence about the PCNs.
5. Enforcement agents acting for TfL traced Ms X to her new address and contacted her demanding payment. Ms X then complained to TfL. At that point the amount outstanding was £6,965.10. TfL agreed, as a gesture of goodwill, that Ms X could pay the daily congestion charge amount to settle the matter and invited her to send a cheque for £368. Ms X did this immediately and says the tracking details show TfL received the cheque on 2 April 2019. But despite agreeing to confirm receipt in writing as soon as it arrived, TfL did not contact her until 15 May when an officer left her a voice message on her phone. Ms X says she suffered stress and raised blood pressure as a result of TfL’s delay and received one call from enforcement agents on 3 May chasing payment.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. It was not fault for TfL to issue Ms X the 32 PCNs. London Tribunals is clear that liability for a congestion charge contravention is strict and the Tribunal cannot consider mitigating circumstances such as the incorrect information Ms X received from another resident or her house-move. The law requires motorists to update the DVLA on any change of address and had Ms X done so in this case she may have become aware of the issue sooner and it is unlikely to have escalated to the same point that it did here.
7. The PCNs resulted from Ms X’s mistake and TfL was entitled to pursue her for payment of the PCNs including fees incurred by its enforcement agents. It has exercised its discretion to reduce the amount Ms X needed to pay from £6,965.10 to £368 but it did not need to do this. It may well be the case that TfL delayed in confirming receipt of Ms X’s cheque, however this resulted in only one telephone call from the enforcement agents and no further contact to pursue payment. TfL has agreed a reduction in the amount owed by Ms X of more than £6,500 and it is unlikely we would recommend any further remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because TfL has provided a suitable remedy for the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman