Summary: Mr X complained about Transport for London’s (TfL) handling of three Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). TfL failed to properly consider his representations against two of the notices which caused Mr X stress and uncertainty. TfL has already agreed to cancel these two notices. There was no fault in its handling of the third notice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained of Transport for London’s (TfL) handling of three Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). He said a combination of system errors and a failure to deal with his correspondence meant TfL failed to properly consider his representations. This resulted in Mr X paying the fines without his representations being considered which he said has caused him financial loss, uncertainty and stress.

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 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered information he provided.
5. I considered TfL’s response to my enquiry letter.
6. I considered relevant law and guidance including:
• London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement.
• Guidance for local authorities on enforcing parking restrictions.

7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on this draft decision. I considered the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant Law and Guidance

8. There is a set procedure local authorities must follow when pursuing PCNs for moving traffic contraventions. When the Authority identifies a contravention, it will issue a PCN to the owner/registered keeper by post. This will detail the amount of the fine and the motorist’s right of appeal, firstly to the Authority itself and then to a tribunal.
9. The motorist has 28 days from the date of the notice to pay the penalty or make representations against it. For the first 14 days after the PCN, the motorist may pay at a discounted rate of 50% of the full fine.
10. The person responsible for the vehicle (usually the vehicle owner) may dispute the issuing of a PCN at three stages:
• ‘informal challenges’ or ‘informal representations’ can be made against the PCN before the authority has served a Notice to Order (NtO)
• Once an NtO (see Appendix 1, Sample Document 1.14) has been served, the vehicle owner may make a formal representation to the Authority
• If a formal representation has been rejected by the Authority, the vehicle owner may appeal against the Notice of Rejection (NoR) to an independent adjudicator
11. London Councils’ Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement says where members of the public submit a payment with a letter challenging the PCN and seeking redress, the Authority should always consider the challenge. It may also give the motorist the option to ask for a refund of their payment and request a NtO so they can make formal representations and appeal if necessary. If the Authority finds no grounds to cancel the PCN, it will write explaining why.
12. Government guidance titled ‘Guidance for local authorities on enforcing parking restrictions’ sets out how authorities should consider discretion. Where a PCN is served for a moving traffic contravention this guidance does not apply but there is a reasonable expectation that councils have regard to it.
13. The guidance says an authority has a discretionary power to cancel a PCN at any point throughout a process, even when an undoubted contravention has occurred. It says enforcement authorities should judge each case on its merits and should apply policy in a flexible way. It says an enforcement authority should be ready to depart from its policies if the particular circumstances of the case warrant it.

What happened

PCN 1

14. In September 2023, TfL issued Mr X with PCN 1 for a moving traffic contravention. The penalty charge on the PCN was £160.00 reduced to £80.00 if paid within 14 days.
15. Mr X said he made a representation against the PCN and TfL asked him to send further evidence to support this. Mr X said he sent this evidence by recorded delivery within timescales but TfL said it had no record of receiving this.
16. TfL issued a Notice of Rejection outlining Mr X’s right to appeal to London Tribunals. It then issued a Charge Certificate increasing the penalty to £240 which Mr X paid in January 2024.

PCN 2

17. In November 2023, TfL issued PCN 2 to Mr X’s employer (Mr X was using a works vehicle) for a moving traffic contravention. The penalty charge on the PCN was £160.00 reduced to £80.00 if paid within 14 days.
18. TfL received a letter from the employer in November 2023 stating Mr X was acting on their behalf in respect of the penalty. TfL authorised this on 13 December 2023.
19. Mr X attempted to make a representation against the PCN via TfL’s website but said he was unable to do so. He complained to TfL about this in February 2023. It responded in March apologising for this error but did not explain why he was unable to make a representation.
20. Mr X paid the full amount of £160 in January 2023 without making a representation.

PCN 3

21. On 29 January 2023, TfL issued PCN 3 to Mr X’s employer (Mr X was using a works vehicle) for a moving traffic contravention. Mr X said he was not notified about PCN 3. He said when he paid PCN 2, the system automatically took a payment for PCN 3 at the discounted rate of £80.00.
22. Mr X complained to TfL about this in February 2023. TfL responded saying that it was unable to provide further information in relation to this because Mr X had not been authorised to act on his employer’s behalf. It closed the case.
23. There is no evidence Mr X provided his representation to TfL or sought authorisation from his employer.
24. Mr X remained unhappy with the TfL handling of the matter and complained to us.

TfL’s response to our enquiries

25. TfL accepted it did receive the evidence from Mr X in respect of PCN 1 and that it failed to properly consider his representations at the time. It agreed to cancel PCN 1 and refund Mr X the full amount.
26. Regarding PCN 2 TfL said it suspected Mr X attempted to submit a representation against this PCN between November and December 2023 when it received a letter from Mr X’s employer authorising Mr X to deal with the PCN. TfL did not process this until mid-December 2023 so any representation received before that date from Mr X would not have been considered. TfL accepts when it responded to Mr X’s complaint in March 2024, it should have been clearer on why he was unable to make a representation when he tried to do so and should have invited him to submit it again. TfL have agreed to cancel the PCN and refund Mr X the full amount.
27. Regarding PCN 3 TfL said Mr X was unlikely aware of this PCN when he paid for it as it was issued that day and it would have not been delivered by post until a few days after. TfL does not believe there was a system error but suggested Mr X mistakenly added both PCNs to his basket for payment.
28. TfL said on receipt of the complaint response which confirmed he did not have authorisation, Mr X could have sought authorisation from his employer to make a representation. Had he done this, TfL has said it would have considered his representation despite his payment of the notice.

My findings

PCN 1

29. TfL has accepted fault in respect of PCN 1 and said it should have considered Mr X’s representations at the time. TfL has agreed to cancel the PCN and refund Mr X the full amount. This is appropriate to remedy any injustice this caused Mr X.

PCN 2

30. TfL has accepted fault that it should have been clearer on why Mr X was unable to make a representation when he tried to do so. TfL have agreed to cancel the PCN and refund Mr X the full amount. This is appropriate to remedy any injustice this caused Mr X.

PCN 3

31. TfL has accepted Mr X was unlikely aware of this PCN and most likely added it to his basket for payment mistakenly.
32. There was no fault in TfL’s decision to issue the PCN. Mr X’s complaint is that he did not have the opportunity to make a challenge.
33. London Council’s Code of Conduct says that Authorities should consider a motorist’s challenge as if they had not paid the PCN. It may also give the motorist the option to ask for a refund of their payment and request a NtO so they can make formal representations and appeal if necessary. If TfL finds no grounds to cancel the PCN, it will write explaining why.
34. On balance, Mr X is aware he is required to get authorisation from him employer to pay the notice or make representations on PCNs when it is related to his work vehicle. TfL’s complaint response also notified him of this but there is no evidence Mr X provided any representations either from himself or his employer. Therefore, there was no fault in TfL’s handling of PCN 3.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. Within one month of the final decision TfL has agreed to refund Mr X the fees paid for PCN 1 and PCN 2 as agreed.
36. TfL should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed this investigation. I have found fault and TfL agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman