Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London for not paying the congestion charge. This is because it would be reasonable to challenge Transport for London’s escalation of the case at court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains he did not receive correspondence from Transport for London (TfL) about a penalty charge notice (PCN). As a result he only found out about the PCN when TfL escalated it to the next stage of the processing, increasing the amount owed. Mr X says he cannot afford to pay the PCN but TfL has now registered it with the court and instructed enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover payment from him.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
3. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is part of Northampton County Court. It considers applications from local authorities to pursue payment of unpaid PCNs. Where a motorist believes the local authority has not followed the proper process to pursue payment they may ask the TEC to file a witness statement or statutory declaration. If it accepts the application the TEC has the power to take a PCN back to an earlier stage, reinstating the motorist's right of appeal and removing the basis for any surcharges added by the local authority and its bailiffs.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Although Mr X has missed the deadline for filing a statutory declaration with the TEC due to being out of the country he may apply to do so now, outside the usual time limit. The TEC will then consider whether to allow him to make a late statutory declaration. In the event the TEC refuses Mr X’s application he may apply for a review of its decision.
6. We consider it reasonable for Mr X to use this process if he wishes to challenge TfL’s escalation of the case on the grounds he did not receive the initial PCN and it has the potential to provide the remedy Mr X wants, which is to pay the PCN a the original rate.
7. While Mr X is concerned he will return to the country and find TfL’s bailiffs have taken all his belongings they are not able to do this. Bailiffs may only force entry to a property to seize goods where they have first been allowed into that property and Mr X suggests they have not.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the TEC to make a late statutory declaration.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman