Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London. This is because it is unlikely he would find any fault by Transport for London in the procedures it followed and because it has offered a remedy. The complainant also had a right of appeal to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs Y, complains about a penalty charge notice issued to her by Transport for London (TfL) for an alleged parking contravention. She says the information about parking restrictions was confusing and she could not afford the penalty charge. She wants TfL to cancel the penalty charge or reduce it to the minimum.

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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault; or
• the Authority has offered a remedy.

(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 read what Mrs Y told us about her complaint and information provided by TfL. I invited her to comment on a draft of this decision.

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. Mrs Y 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.

Summary of events

8. TfL issued a penalty charge notice to Mrs Y because it believed she had parked where this is not allowed. This required her to pay £130 although TfL could accept £65 if she paid within 14 days.
9. Mrs Y made representations to TfL against the notice. TfL rejected these and issued a ‘notice of rejection’ which explained she could either pay £130, or £65 within 14 days, or appeal to London Tribunals.
10. As Mrs Y did not appeal or pay the penalty charge, TfL continued with recovery action. Under the Regulations, the penalty had increased to £195. TfL registered the unpaid penalty charge as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. This added a further £8 to the amount Mrs Y had to pay.
11. Mrs Y has yet to pay the penalty charge. However, when I asked it for information, TfL offered to exercise discretion to accept £65 in settlement of the debt.

Analysis

12. Mrs Y had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice to London Tribunals and I have seen no reason she could not have exercised that right. The restriction I describe in paragraph three should therefore apply.
13. Further, while there is nothing to suggest TfL has not followed the proper procedures, it has offered to accept £65.This represents a satisfactory response.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it was reasonable for Mrs Y to exercise her right to appeal against the penalty charge, it is unlikely we would find fault by TfL and it has offered a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman