Transport for London (20 009 790)
Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 29 Jan 2021
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about penalty charge notices issued by Transport for London. The complainant has appealed against the penalty charge notices to a tribunal.
The complaint
- The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, has complained about eight penalty charge notices he received from Transport for London (TfL). The penalty charges were for driving in the congestion charging zone without paying the required charge.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. It says we cannot investigate a complaint when someone has appealed to a tribunal, regardless of the outcome. We have no discretion in this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I have considered what Mr B said in his complain and spoken with him. TfL provided a copy of the formal notice it sent to Mr B after he made representations against the penalty charge notices.
What I found
Background
- 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 car owners must follow these procedures.
- The law provides a right of appeal against a congestion zone penalty charge notice to London Tribunals which is a statutory tribunal. An appeal to London Tribunals 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 2 generally applies.
Analysis
- TfL issued penalty charge notices to Mr B because it believed he had driven in the congestion charging zone without paying the required charge. He made representations against the penalty charge notices explaining why he believed he should not have to pay.
- TfL sent Mr B a ‘notice of rejection’. This explained why it had decided not to cancel the penalty charge notices and how Mr B could appeal to London Tribunals against them.
Final decision
- I have decided we cannot investigate this complaint. This is because Mr B has now appealed to London Tribunals against the penalty charge notices. The restriction I describe in paragraph 2 therefore applies.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman