Summary: Ms X complained that Transport for London is pursuing her for payments on two penalty charge notices that she has paid. The information provided shows the payment Ms X claims is for these two notices is actually for other charges. However, there is fault in how Transport for London responded to her complaints and so its offer to write off the charges is an appropriate remedy.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that Transport for London (TfL) is pursuing her for payments on two penalty charge notices even though she has already paid them. She says TfL has not provided evidence to support its claim it refunded the £160 taken from her bank account.
2. Ms X says she has tried to resolve the situation but TfL has not responded and has continued to take enforcement action resulting in the amount owed increasing.

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. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with an authority’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of TfL and considered the comments and documents it provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms X received several penalty charge notices (PCN) after driving into the emission zone without paying. Ms X had not notified the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) of a change in address and so the PCNs were sent to an old address. This is why Ms X did not act immediately and continued to incur PCNs.
7. Ms X is not complaining about the PCN’s and accepts the money is owed. Ms X paid the charges online. Ms X says that on 22 April she used the TfL online payment system to pay two outstanding PCNs. Ms X has provided a receipt with showing a payment of £160 against two PCN reference numbers. The receipt shows the payment was made on 22 April 2020 at 14:21. The receipt shows nothing owing on both PCNs.
8. Ms X says she received a letter from TfL on 12 May 2020 saying her payment attempt was unsuccessful. The letter only details one PCN reference number and says that as the result of a system processing error, the authorised payment transaction did not complete. The letter said the PCN remains unpaid and explains further enforcement action will be taken if payment is not received within 28 days.
9. Ms X contacted TfL saying she had a receipt showing the payment was made on 22 April and provided a copy of her bank account showing £160 was taken on that date. Ms X says that during one telephone call with TfL she was told a reversal payment had been made into her bank account on 11 May. Ms X checked this with her bank and provided evidence to TfL showing the money had been taken but had not been refunded. In a letter dated 13 August, Ms X asked TfL to escalate her concerns as she was disputing she owed any money.
10. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman because TfL did not respond to her complaints and continued to pursue her for the disputed amount. Ms X says the amounts owned had increased and TfL was now demanding £480.

Analysis

11. Ms X is not disputing the PCN. Her complaint is that TfL continues to pursue her for the money even though she has paid it. Ms X says that because the matter has not been resolved, TfL has pursued further enforcement action and is now asking for £480.
12. In response to my enquiries, TfL says it did not receive a payment of £160 for the two PCNs on 22 April. It says an attempt to pay the two PCNs was made on 22 April but it was unsuccessful. It says £160 was debited from her bank account on 21 April but this relates to two different PCNs and the transaction took place on 17 April. In its response TfL has provided the reference numbers for the two earlier PCNs.
13. I have carefully considered the information provided regarding the two payments. Ms X does have a receipt showing £160 was paid on 22 April. Her bank statement shows a debit of £160 on 21 April and references a payment date of 17 April. As the debit on the bank statement is dated earlier than the date on the TfL receipt and I am aware that Ms X received more than two PCNs, I am satisfied with TfL’s explanation and that it did not receive the money associated with the payment attempted on 22 April.
14. I cannot explain why Ms X received a receipt on 22 April showing the payment was successful. However, there is no corresponding debit from her bank account dated on or after 22 April.
15. TfL says that it wrote to Ms X on 12 May to notify her of the unsuccessful payment. This letter refers to only one PCN reference. TfL says there is no record of the other unsuccessful payment and so no letter was sent to Ms X about that PCN.
16. In response to my enquiries, TfL says that while it maintains Ms X has not paid the two disputed PCNs it is clear it has not responded appropriately to her complaints. It accepts it did not properly investigate her complaint and it has not provided her was a clear explanation of what happened. It says it will cancel both penalties.
17. Looking at the evidence available, I take the view, on balance, that Ms X’s payment attempt on 22 April was unsuccessful and no money was taken. Ms X believed she had paid and as TfL continued to pursue her for the money, she disputed the continued recovery action. TfL did not provide a clear and consistent account of what had happened. There was a lack of notification, failure to investigate and incorrect information provided about a refund. This failure to provide a clear response to Ms X’s concerns, even if she was incorrect in her claim the money was paid, was fault.
18. While Ms X may feel there is still a lack of clear explanation as what actually took place, I consider TfL has proposed an appropriate remedy by offering to cancel the two PCNs and all further recovery action.

Agreed action

19. Within one month of my final decision, TfL will write to Ms X confirming the two outstanding PCNs have been cancelled and no further action will be taken in respect of them.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman