Transport for London (19 019 769)
Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties
Decision : Upheld
Decision date : 01 Jul 2020
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an enforcement agent’s threat to remove his belongings for a penalty charge notice issued before he bought his car. This is because Transport for London has provided a suitable remedy for the complaint.
The complaint
- The complainant, Mr X, complains enforcement agents (bailiffs) acting for Transport for London (TfL) threatened to attend his home and remove his belongings to pay a penalty charge notice (PCN) he was not responsible for.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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 are satisfied with the actions a local authority has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and TfL’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.
What I found
- Mr X purchased his car in September 2019. In December 2019 he returned home to a letter from bailiffs acting for TfL which stated they would attend his home to remove his goods unless he paid £558 immediately. He contacted the bailiffs and explained he was not responsible for the PCN which was issued in May 2019, some four months before he purchased the car. The bailiffs insisted they could continue enforcement action but later called him back to confirm it accepted he was not responsible and would take no further action. Mr X complained to TfL but received no response so he brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. We referred the complaint back to TfL and it accepted fault. It offered Mr X £100 as a remedy for the bailiff’s threat to remove his goods and £50 for its delay in responding to his complaint. Mr X says this is inadequate.
- The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Mr X’s injustice lies in the shock and distress he suffered as a result of receiving the bailiffs’ letter and the time and trouble he went to, to resolve the matter. Mr X considers TfL’s offer of £150 is not enough to remedy the impact this but it is unlikely we would recommend anything more. The bailiffs did not attend Mr X’s property to remove his belongings and despite their initial assertion that they may continue enforcement action, Mr X confirms they checked his claim with the DVLA promptly and took no further action.
- TfL accepts it took too long to respond to Mr X’s complaint but its offer takes account of this delay and this is not an issue we would investigate separately.
Final decision
- The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because TfL has offered Mr X a suitable remedy and it is unlikely we could achieve anything more for him.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman