Summary: Mr X complains Transport for London has not dealt with enforcement action properly. Transport for London did not take account of evidence he provided or take proper action regarding it. Mr X suffered avoidable distress despite complaining many times. Transport for London should pay Mr X £100 for distress.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains that Transport for London (TfL) did not deal properly with enforcement action because it did not take account of evidence he provided showing he was not the debtor.
2. Mr X says he suffered distress for several months as debt collection enforcement action continued when it should not have done.

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 organisation’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. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered documents he provided. I considered documents TfL provided.
6. Mr X and TfL had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened?

7. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
8. In 2022, TfL believed that Mr X was the person responsible for a number of outstanding penalty charge notices (PCNs). It instructed an enforcement agent (EA) to recover the amount it believed was outstanding.
9. Mr X obtained confirmation from the Driving and Vehicle Licencing Authority that he was not the person responsible and passed this to the EA.
10. Mr X spoke to the EA on the telephone and by text messages and was told enforcement action would continue.
11. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman that enforcement action was still continuing.
12. TfL agreed to stop enforcement action and take no further action until it had responded to Mr X’s complaint. TfL responded to Mr X’s complaint and accepted that he was not the person responsible and that no further action would be taken.

Analysis

13. Al parties now agree that Mr X was not the person responsible for the PCNs.
14. Mr X advised the EA of the information which showed he was not responsible, in July 2022.
15. TfL agrees:
• Mr X has been contacted unnecessarily by its Enforcement Agents.
• The EA gave Mr X incorrect information that enforcement was continuing because the change in status of Mr X’s case following the 14 July telephone call was not recorded.
16. TfL says Mr X was advised on 14 July that his case would be placed on hold.
17. Messages on 15 July 2022 show the EA informed Mr X that enforcement action would continue until TfL instructed them to stop.
18. TfL says the EA have not contacted Mr X since July 2022. There is no evidence contradicting this.
19. Mr X explained the situation to TfL in early August. TfL sent Mr X a letter telling him that it acknowledged his circumstances, there was no further right of appeal, the PCNs could not be considered null for any reasons and to contact the EA to pay the outstanding fees.
20. Emails to the Ombudsman at the end of August show there were still outstanding warrants and it would arrange for the immediate stopping of enforcement action. Mr X was not informed of this by TfL until early October.
21. TfL only began to consider Mr X’s concerns as a complaint at the end of August. It should have done this earlier when Mr X first explained the situation to it at the beginning of August, instead of directing him back to the EA.
22. The EA acted on behalf of TfL. Mr X should not have to send information to both parties. Evidently, the EA did not communicate with TfL about the information passed to it by Mr X.
23. TfL did not take proper account of the information provided to it by Mr X in July, because it did not record the change in Mr X’s case status properly, the EA did not pass Mr X’s information to it and it did not consider Mr X’s complaint until he had complained to the Ombudsman.
24. This is fault by TfL. Mr X suffered distress because he was led to believe that enforcement action was continuing, by both TfL and the EA, until he was formally advised in early October that it had been placed on hold.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, TfL has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of this decision:
• Apologise to Mr X
• Pay Mr X £100 for avoidable distress.
26. TfL should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have found fault by TfL, which caused injustice to Mr X. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman