Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London. Mr X had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice and has applied to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to reinstate this right. If Mr X disagrees with the Traffic Enforcement Centre’s decision he would need to apply for a review.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by Transport for London (TfL). He would like TfL to cancel the PCN and apologise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court but cannot investigate if the person has already been to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint, shared my draft decision with him and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. TfL issued Mr X a PCN for stopping on a red route/clearway in 2019.
8. There is a set procedure authorities must follow when pursuing PCNs for such. First it will issue a PCN to the owner/registered keeper by post. This will detail the amount of the fine and the motorist’s right of appeal, firstly to the authority itself and then to a Tribunal.
9. If the motorist does not pay or make formal representations TfL will issue a charge certificate, increasing the amount payable by 50%. It may then apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court to register the debt, before instructing enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover it.
10. Mr X disputes the PCN and says he was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the contravention. He did not receive the original PCN and only became aware of it when TfL issued the charge certificate. At that point he provided evidence in support of his position but TfL declined to consider his representations as they were late. It also decided not to cancel the PCN.
11. TfL has now registered the unpaid PCN as a debt with the TEC and instructed bailiffs to recover payment from Mr X. Mr X applied to the TEC to file a late statutory declaration to challenge TfL’s escalation of the case and reinstate his right of appeal but the TEC refused his application.
12. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. Whether Mr X is liable for the PCN is a matter for the appeals process. Mr X has applied to the TEC to reinstate his right of appeal and if he disagrees with its decision to refuse his application he would need to apply for a review. If the TEC accepts Mr X’s application it may order TfL to take the process back to an earlier stage. Mr X may then appeal against the PCN under the process set out above.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has sought to reinstate his right of appeal against the PCN and if he is not happy with the TEC’s decision he would need to request a review.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman