Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London for a parking contravention. The complainant had a right of appeal but Transport for London has now cancelled the penalty charge notice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained about how Transport for London (TfL) dealt with a penalty charge notice for a parking contravention. Mr B says TfL should cancel the penalty charge notice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint when someone has sought a remedy in court; we have no discretion in this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if, for example, investigation would not lead to a worthwhile outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint and discussed it with him. TfL also provide background information.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. TfL enforces parking restrictions and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the Traffic Management Act 2004 and associated Regulations. TfL and motorists must follow these procedures although TfL has discretion to stop enforcement or recovery action if it believes there are good reasons to do so.
7. In law, the owner of vehicle is responsible for any penalty charges regardless of who was driving at the time of the contravention. This is most often the person registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) as the keeper of the vehicle. Enforcement authorities will first send any formal documents using keeper details provided by the DVLA.
8. The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 require the owner of a vehicle to immediately inform the DVLA of any change of address. It is an offence under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 to use a vehicle where the correct address is not held by the DVLA.
9. Mr B had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice to London Tribunals which is a statutory tribunal. An appeal to London Tribunals is free and relatively easy to use. It is also the way in which Parliament expects people to challenge a penalty charge notice. For these reasons, the restriction I describe in paragraph 2 generally applies.

Summary of events

10. In April 2018 TfL issued a penalty charge notice by post to Mr B because it believes he had parked where this was not permitted. Mr B made representations against the penalty charge notice which TfL rejected. It sent a formal ‘notice of rejection’ to the address provided by the DVLA. This informed Mr B how he could appeal to London Tribunals.
11. As it received no payment or appeal, TfL continued with recovery action and eventually registered the unpaid penalty as a debt the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. This allowed it to use bailiffs to collect the unpaid penalty charge and any additional charges.
12. When he was contacted by bailiffs, Mr B asked the TEC to accept a late witness statement. If it had done this, it would have restored Mr B’s right of appeal to London Tribunals.
13. In December 2018 the TEC refused Mr B’s application and told him he could ask another court to review its decision within 14 days. It does not appear Mr B did this or pay the outstanding penalty charge.
14. It is unclear what happened between December 2018 and Mr B’s complaint to us in October 2019 although it appears there was some contact between Mr B and TfL’s bailiffs.
15. In response to my request for background information, TfL reviewed the history of the case. It decided to exercise its discretion to cancel the penalty charge given the time that has passed.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. Mr B had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice and asked a court to restore that right. Further, investigation would provide no worthwhile outcome because TfL has cancelled the penalty charge notice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman