Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London. This is because Transport for London has agreed to cancel the penalty charge notice and this provides a suitable remedy for the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by Transport for London (TfL) for a red route contravention. She disputes the PCN and was not happy with TfL’s offer to accept payment at the discounted rate of £80.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and TfL.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. While TfL maintains it correctly issued the PCN it has acknowledged that it failed to formally respond to Mrs X’s representations against it. As a result Mrs X was not given a notice of rejection which is required to take her case to London Tribunals.
6. In recognition of this error TfL has agreed to cancel the PCN and take no further action. This provides a suitable remedy for the complaint and it is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for Mrs X.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because TfL’s agreement to cancel the PCN provides a suitable remedy for the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman