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

  1. 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.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and TfL’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. 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.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings