Privacy settings

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.

Transport for London (19 020 308)

Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 30 Mar 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that Transport for London delayed in issuing a penalty charge notice. This is because Mr X has appealed against the penalty charge notice to London Tribunals.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, Mr X, complains he did not receive a penalty charge notice (PCN) within the 14-day discounted period. As a result, he had to pay the full amount of £130. He also complains Transport for London (TfL) did not call him back when it promised to do so and failed to properly deal with his concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
  3. 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

  1. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and discussed the matter with him. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

  1. TfL issued Mr X a PCN for a moving traffic contravention in 2019. Mr X did not receive the PCN within the initial 14-day discounted period so when TfL rejected his representations against the PCN it told him the full amount of £130 was due. Mr X appealed against the PCN to London Tribunals but it refused his appeal and it confirmed the penalty charge at £130. Mr X then contacted TfL to ask that it accept his payment at the discounted rate but it declined. Mr X is unhappy with the way TfL dealt with his calls.
  2. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. Mr X has appealed against the PCN and the Adjudicator has confirmed Mr X must pay £130. While Mr X makes the point that London Tribunals did not consider the delay in him receiving the PCN and could not provide a remedy for this, the courts have previously decided this does not alter our position. They have also ruled that where we cannot investigate a complaint about the main or underlying issue, we cannot normally investigate related issues either. So we would not look at TfL’s handling of Mr X’s telephone calls as a separate matter.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page