Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint that Transport for London wrongly sent her a penalty charge notice. Transport for London has provided a suitable remedy for the complaint. In addition, it would have been reasonable for Ms B to appeal to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains that Transport for London (TfL) wrongly sent her a penalty charge notice (PCN) when she had paid the congestion charge. Ms B also complains TfL took too long to resolve the error.

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 believe it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council or it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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)
4. London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Ms B’s complaint and TfL’s responses to it. I shared my draft decision with Ms B and invited her comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. TfL issued Ms B with a PCN for £80 in July 2019. TfL said Ms B had entered the congestion zone and had not paid the fee.
7. Ms B challenged the PCN and she was issued with a notice of rejection by TfL on 30 October 2019. TfL said it could not find that payment was received from the card details Ms B provided. Ms B was given the option to either pay the penalty or continue to appeal and take it to the tribunal.
8. Ms B says she paid the PCN because she was afraid of court action. However, she continued to challenge it with TfL.
9. TfL emailed Ms B on 29 November 2019 and confirmed it had cancelled the PCN and the £80 was to be refunded to the card she used to pay. TfL agreed it would pay Ms B £20 for the cost of calls she made trying to resolve the issue.
10. Ms B emailed TfL on 3, 5 and 6 December 2019 and said she had not received the refund or the £20.
11. TfL responded to Ms B on 6 December 2019 and said it had processed the refund and that it would be sending her a cheque for £20. TfL confirmed the PCN should not have been issued and it had not conducted a full investigation when Ms B provided evidence from her bank confirming payment had been made. TfL apologised for the errors and delays in dealing with Ms B’s case and told her it would review the procedures to ensure it didn’t happen to other motorists. TfL also agreed to pay Ms B a further £150 (on top of the £20 it had already offered) for the inconvenience its errors had caused her.
12. TfL issued a cheque to Ms B on 18 December 2019 for £170 and it apologised for the delay in sending it.
13. I will not start an investigation because TfL has provided a suitable remedy. TfL cancelled the PCN, issued a refund, explained what went wrong, apologised, awarded compensation and confirmed it would review its procedures. Ms B says the compensation is not enough but the amount is consistent with what the Ombudsman would expect in similar cases.
14. It is also the case if TfL had not resolved the matter it would have been reasonable for Ms B to have appealed to the tribunal and provided evidence that she paid the congestion fee. The tribunal is the appropriate body to consider disputes about PCNs.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint. This is because TfL has provided a suitable remedy for the complaint and because it would have been reasonable for Ms B to have appealed to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman