Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London’s issue and handling of three penalty charge notices for stopping on a red route. This is because Transport for London has cancelled the penalty charge notices, apologised to Mr X and agreed to carry out a review of its processes and it is unlikely we would recommend anything more.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about Transport for London/s (TfL’s) issue and handling of three penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued for stopping on a red route. He also complains TfL failed to answer his ‘freedom of information’ request in time and discriminated against him.

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. We 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. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and TfL.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X owns a company which provides waste and recycling services. TfL issued him three PCNs (PCN 1, PCN 2 and PCN 3) for stopping on a red route while he says he was stopped to carry out activities relating to his business.
10. Mr X made representations against PCN 1 but TfL rejected them. He therefore appealed to London Tribunals but London Tribunals rejected his appeal.
11. Mr X also made representations against PCN 2 but TfL rejected them because they were late.
12. Mr X did not make representations against PCN 3.
13. Because Mr X appealed against PCN 1 we have no jurisdiction to consider any complaint about it, or about TfL’s handling/rejection of his representations against it.
14. Mr X’s complaints about PCN 2 and PCN 3 are within our jurisdiction to investigate but it is unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for Mr X. This is because in response to Mr X’s complaint TfL agreed to cancel all three PCNs, apologise for not doing more to help him and undertook to review its processes for handling calls through its Contact Centre where reasonable adjustments are requested. This provides a suitable remedy for the complaint and it is unlikely we would recommend anything more.
15. Mr X says TfL discriminated against him and failed to answer his freedom of information request in time but these are matters for the courts and the Information Commissioner, respectively. We cannot decide if TfL discriminated against Mr X and the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with any complaint about its handling of his information request.
16. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the actions TfL has agreed to provide a sufficient remedy for the complaint and it is unlikely we would recommend anything more. Mr X’s concerns about the handling of his freedom of information request and discrimination are matters which are more appropriate for consideration by the Information Commissioner and the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman