Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London’s handling of his representations against a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to London Tribunals. We will not investigate TfL’s escalation of the case as it did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains Transport for London (TfL) failed to respond to his second representation against a penalty charge notice (PCN) for a moving traffic contravention. He says TfL then escalated the case and increased the amount of the charge without warning.

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 has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Background

7. There is a set procedure for issuing PCNs for moving traffic contraventions and handling appeals against them.
8. TfL issued Mr X a PCN on 22 May 2024 and Mr X made representations against it on 24 May 2024. TfL rejected Mr X’s representations on 30 May 2024 and told Mr X he should pay the PCN at the discounted rate of £80 (if paid within 14 days) or £160 (if paid after this) or appeal to London Tribunals. But Mr X instead submitted a second representation.
9. TfL put the case on hold while it considered Mr X’s further comments but decided they did not provide anything new to warrant cancelling the PCN. Mr X still had not paid the PCN so it gave him a month and then escalated the case to the next stage, issuing a charge certificate which increased the amount of the penalty charge to £240.

Mr X’s case

10. It was Mr X’s choice to make a second representation to TfL despite this not being part of the formal process. Had Mr X wished to challenge the PCN further it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals, as set out in TfL’s notice of rejection.
11. While TfL put the case on hold in response to Mr X’s second representation this did not mean it had to accept it. The hold allowed Mr X a further month to pay the PCN before it increased the amount of the charge and Mr X could have paid at any point within this time.
12. It would have been good practice for TfL to respond to Mr X’s second representation to let him know it would not consider the matter further but the injustice caused by its failure to do so is not significant enough to warrant investigation. The issue of the charge certificate without any prior warning to Mr X resulted in the increase of the penalty charge from £160 to £240 and this amount is not enough to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. If Mr X wished to challenge the PCN it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals. The increase in the amount of the PCN from £160 to £240 is not significant enough to warrant investigation into TfL’s handling of Mr X’s second representation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman