Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage to his car which he says happened when his car was taken by Transport for London’s enforcement agents. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court. We will not look again at Mr X’s complaint about the removal of his car as this is a matter we have already considered and decided.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains Transport for London’s (TfL’s) enforcement agents returned his car to him in a state which meant it was undriveable. He says that by the time he got to his car he had been issued a penalty charge notice (PCN).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. TfL’s enforcement agents removed Mr X’s car due to numerous unpaid PCNs. We have previously considered Mr X’s complaint about these PCNs and the removal of the vehicle and will not revisit these issues as part of this complaint.
7. We have also previously explained to Mr X that any damage to his vehicle is a matter for the courts and this remains the case. If therefore Mr X believes TfL is responsible for the damage to his car it would be reasonable for him to make a claim against it at court.
8. The PCN Mr X refers to was issued by a different local authority and carried a right of appeal to London Tribunals. London Tribunals is better placed to consider whether the local authority should cancel the PCN and as part of an appeal it could have considered Mr X’s claim that it was left on the road in a state which meant he could not move it.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to make a claim for the damage to his car at court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman