Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s handling of the enforcement process and associated complaints regarding a penalty charge notice. The complainant has already used his rights of appeal to court and a statutory tribunal, we will not look at the complaints process in isolation, and the Authority has already taken satisfactory action to address the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Transport for London has failed to adequately respond to his correspondence and complaints regarding its treatment of him during the enforcement of a penalty charge notice (PCN).

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.
3. We can investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We also cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
6. Similarly, the courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
7. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is part of Northampton County Court. It considers applications from local authorities to pursue payment of unpaid PCNs and from motorists to challenge local authorities’ pursuit of unpaid PCNs.
8. Lastly, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and Transport for London, which included some of their complaint correspondence.
• London Tribunal’s decision on Mr X’s appeal against the PCN.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. The restriction detailed in paragraphs 4 and 5 above apply to Mr X’s complaint because he has already used his right of appeal to London Tribunals to challenge the PCN. This means the Ombudsman has no power to consider any parts of the complaint about the merits of the PCN itself or the information submitted to London Tribunals by Transport for London.
11. Similarly, we cannot look at any parts of the complaint about whether Transport for London properly followed the enforcement process, as Mr X has already used his right of appeal to the TEC to remedy any errors in that regard.
12. And with reference to paragraph 8, it is not a good use of our resources to look at the Council’s handling of Mr X’s associated correspondence and complaints, if we are unable to look at the substantive matters being complained about. We will therefore not investigate this issue separately.
13. And even if the above restrictions did not apply, it is unlikely the Ombudsman could achieve much more than the actions already undertaken by Transport for London in response to the complaint, namely:
• the cancellation of the PCN as a gesture of good will.
• the apology for the incorrect information provided in its submission to London Tribunals, and for the delay in responding to the complaint.
• the provision of feedback and training to the agent involved in preparing its submission to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint against Transport for London because:
• he has already used his rights of appeal to the TEC and London Tribunals,
• we will not pursue the alleged faults in the complaints process in isolation, and
• it has already taken satisfactory action to address the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman