Summary: Ms A complained Transport for London failed to correctly record her address meaning she did not receive the penalty charge notice correspondence it sent her. Transport for London has already accepted it was at fault when it missed the house number from Ms A’s address. That resulted in avoidable time and trouble to Ms A who had to write a statutory declaration. Transport for London has apologised and offered a payment of £200. This is sufficient to remedy any injustice caused to Ms A.

The complaint

1. Ms A complained Transport for London(TfL) failed to correctly record her address meaning she did not receive correspondence about the penalty charge notice it issued.
2. Ms A wants TfL to prove it corrected her address on its record and pay her compensation. She said the time and trouble in trying to resolve the matter also resulted in loss of earnings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
4. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

• I have considered the complaint correspondence provided by Ms A.
• I have made enquiries of the authority and considered its comments and documents it provided.
• Ms A and Transport for London had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Law

6. When TfL issues a PCN, it will send it to the registered keeper of the vehicle based on the details held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).
7. Motorists have 28 days to either pay the PCN or challenge it by making a representation online or in writing.
8. If the PCN is not paid or challenged within 28 days, TfL issues a charge certificate to the registered keeper, increasing the amount owed. If the penalty charge is not paid within 14 days of TfL issuing the charge certificate, TfL can register the unpaid debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) who issues an order of recovery.
9. If, after 21 days, the charge remains unpaid and a Statutory Declaration is not made, TfL can apply for a warrant of execution and pass the outstanding debt onto enforcement agents.
10. TfL outsourced the enforcement of penalty charge notices to a private company that I shall refer to as the Service.

Background

11. In 2018 TfL issued a PCN on a car that Ms A had on a long-term lease. The Service initially issued the PCN to the lease-hire company. It then reissued the notice to Ms A at the address the company provided. The Service recorded Ms A’s address incorrectly. That meant she did not receive the enforcement correspondence and was not aware of the outstanding PCN until her vehicle was clamped. She contacted the Service which reimbursed her fees. Ms A said the Service confirmed it had her correct address.

What happened - 2020

12. In January 2020 TfL issued another PCN to Ms A. Although it sent the letter to the correct street, it did not include Ms A’s house number. Ms A said she did not receive the PCN or the charge certificate.
13. In March 2020 Ms A received the order for recovery. Ms A said the postman must have recognised the name on the letter and included it in with other letters.
14. In April 2020 Ms A contacted TfL and complained it had issued a PCN in her name but omitted her house number from the address. Ms A made a statutory declaration stating that she did not receive the initial PCN. That was successful and TfL reissued the PCN.
15. In August 2020 TfL responded and apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint and the problems relating to the PCN it issued in 2018. It offered Ms A £200 as an apology.
16. Ms A contacted TfL and explained her complaint was about it sending a second PCN to an address with no house number after the Service assured her it had corrected her address.
17. TfL responded and provided a screenshot of the recorded address. The house number recorded was not Ms A’s house number. It explained the officer issuing the PCN in 2020 may have copied Ms A’s address from the PCN issued in 2019. TfL apologised and said that in recognition of its error, it would send Ms A the cheque for £200 which it had previously offered.
18. Ms A remained unhappy about the amount of financial remedy offered and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

My findings

Failure to record correct address

19. TfL has accepted the Service wrongly addressed Ms A’s PCN. It said it pre-populated the address from a previous PCN which was wrongly addressed, which was fault. That fault put Ms A to the avoidable time and trouble of having to make a statutory declaration. TfL subsequently reissued the PCN at the discounted rate putting Ms A back in the position she would have been in if it were not for the fault. In addition, TfL apologised and offered Ms A £200 to remedy the injustice caused.
20. In considering whether that payment remedies the injustice caused, I have referred to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. Where a bodies’ actions have caused avoidable distress, and put a person to avoidable time and trouble, we may recommend a financial remedy of between £100 - £300 for the injustice caused. Therefore, I am satisfied TfL’s offer of £200 is in line with our guidance. Ms A’s claim for loss of earnings and compensation is not a matter for the Ombudsman but best suited to the courts.

Agreed action

21. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with the actions of the Service provider, I have made recommendations to Transport for London.
22. Within one month of this decision, TfL will:
• pay Ms A £200 for the avoidable time and trouble in pursuing it to include a house number in her address;
• provide evidence that Ms A’s address has been corrected on its system.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation and find Transport for London was at fault. It has already accepted it was at fault when it missed the house number from Ms A’s address, apologised for this and agreed to a payment of £200. This is sufficient to remedy any injustice this caused Ms A.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman