Summary: The Ombudsman has completed his investigation because he is satisfied the Authority has taken appropriate steps to address Mr X’s complaint regarding two penalty charge notices.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains about Transport for London's (the Authority’s) handling of two penalty charge notices (PCNs). He says the Authority failed to consider his representations against one PCN and increased the amount of the other PCN without telling him how to appeal.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 6)
3. If we are satisfied with an authority’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the authority and considered the comments and documents the authority provided. I have also considered the complainant’s comments on my draft decision

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X received two PCN’s in August 2019. He made online representations to the Authority about both at the same time. The Authority says it received representations about only one PCN.
6. The Authority asked Mr X for further information to support his representations in September 2019. It sent the request by post to the address Mr X’s vehicle was registered with the DVLA. Mr X says he did not receive this request.
7. As the Authority did not receive a response, it rejected Mr X’s representations and sent him a notice confirming this. It advised Mr X he should pay the PCN at the discounted rate of £65 within 14 days.
8. Mr X did not pay the second PCN in the discounted rate period. The Authority then issued a charge certificate confirming the amount payable was now £195.
9. Mr X complained that he had made representations regarding both PCNs at the same time. He said the stress was causing him to feel suicidal.
10. The Authority replied regarding the second PCN. It said that representations must be made within 28 days of the notice to owner, but in this instance, it would use its discretion to allow late representations in writing within the next 7 days.
11. Mr X replied that he was disputing two PCNs. He asked for the details of the one for which he needed to send representations.
12. The Authority explained that it had rejected his representations regarding the first PCN and attached a coy of its notice of rejection. It said Mr X should pay the outstanding £65. It gave details of the second PCN.
13. Mr X responded that the Authority’s rejection notice of the first PCN included information he uploaded with his representations regarding the second PCN. He provided copies of the representations he said he had made.
14. The Authority accepted Mr X’s representations on the second PCN and cancelled it. However, Mr X says that when he went to pay the first PCN at the £65 rate the amount had increased to £130. He asked the Council why it had increased
15. The Authority replied that after it sent the notice of rejection he had 28 days to pay. It said the charge “increased by 50% of the original amount.” This explanation appears incorrect. I have asked the Authority to comment on this.
16. It is not clear when the Authority obtained a charge certificate for the first PCN, but it increased the charge to £195. Mr X paid and complained to the Ombudsman.
17. In its response to our enquiries the Authority said that in December the Royal Mail returned the notice of rejection it sent to Mr X regarding the first PCN. Therefore, it was unclear whether Mr X had received the Notice or the earlier request for further information. As a result of this the Authority has offered to cancel the PCN and refund £195. It says it will update its records to reflect that Mr X’s vehicle meets its standards regarding the weight restriction applying to the first PCN, although it would normally require further evidence.

Agreed action

18. I consider the Authority’s offer to cancel the PCN and accept that Mr X’s vehicle meets its standards is a suitable way to resolve this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman