Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice for not paying the London congestion zone charge. We have no jurisdiction because the complainant sought a remedy in court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs B, has complained Transport for London (TfL) used bailiffs to collect an unpaid penalty charge for failing to pay the congestion charge. Mrs B says she paid the original penalty charge but TfL continued to take recovery action. She says TfL should refund the money she had to pay to bailiffs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The law also says we cannot investigate a complaint when someone has sought a remedy in court; we have no discretion in this. The courts have decided this restriction applies even if the court could not provide a remedy for all the claimed injustice. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. The Courts have decided we cannot investigate a complaint about any action concerning a matter which is itself out of our jurisdiction. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2006] EHWCC 2847 (Admin))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered what Mrs B said in her complaint. TfL also provided background information.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. TfL enforces the congestion charging zone and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and associated Regulations. TfL and motorists must follow these procedures.
8. There is a right of appeal to London Tribunals against penalty charge notices issued by TfL. An appeal to London Tribunals, which is a statutory tribunal, is free and relatively easy to use. It is also the way in which Parliament expects people to challenge a penalty charge notice. For these reasons, the restriction I describe in paragraph 3 generally applies.

Analysis

9. TfL issued a penalty charge notice to Mrs B in August 2018 because it believed she had driven in the congestion charging zone without paying the required charge. The penalty charge was £160 although TfL could accept £80 within 14 days. The penalty charge notice explained Mrs B must either pay or make representations against it within 28 days. If she made representations and TfL rejected them, she could appeal to an independent adjudicator.
10. As it received no payment or representations within 28 days, TfL issued a charge certificate. In line with the regulations, the penalty charge increased to £240. If Mrs B did not pay within 14 days (by 7 November 2018), TfL could register the unpaid penalty charge as a debt and use bailiffs to collect it.
11. Mrs B made representations online to say she had paid £80. TfL says it has never received this and Mrs B representations suggest, unknown to her, it was not taken out of her bank account. As there was no evidence of a payment, TfL regarded the representation as being too late and carried on with recovery action.
12. TfL registered the unpaid penalty charge as a debt at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. On 31 December 2018, it sent Mrs B an order for recovery requiring her within 21 days to either pay £240 or make a statutory declaration to the TEC on certain grounds.
13. As Mrs B had not paid or made a statutory declaration, the Council obtained a warrant from the TEC. It passed this to bailiffs so they could collect the debt from Mrs B.
14. Mrs B then asked the TEC to accept a late statutory declaration outside the 21 day period. If the TEC had accepted this:
• It would have revoked the order for recovery;
• the penalty charge would have returned to £160; and
• the matter would be passed to London Tribunals for a decision on how to proceed, and so the restriction I describe in paragraph 3 would apply.
15. However, the TEC refused to accept Mrs B’s statutory declaration and advised her she could ask another court to review its decision within 14 days. Mrs B did not do this.
16. As the order for recovery remained on force, TfL continued to take recovery action. Mrs B paid bailiffs the full amount owing, including court and bailiffs’ fees, in September 2019.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have decided we cannot investigate this complaint because Mrs B had a right of appeal against the penalty charge notice and has asked a court to restore that right. She has therefore sought a remedy in a court of law and the restrictions I describe in paragraphs 4 and 5 apply.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman