Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London’s pursuit of payment for a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by Transport for London.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains Transport for London (TfL) made errors in sending correspondence about a penalty charge notice (PCN) and lost his payment of £280. TfL sent its enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover payment from him and he paid them £590, even though he says he had already paid.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X’s complaint stems from his belief that TfL issued him a single PCN and that it continued to escalate the case and pass it to bailiffs, despite him having already paid it. But this is not the case.
5. The evidence Mr X has provided shows TfL issued Mr X two PCNs and that he paid one but not the other. TfL’s bailiffs therefore wrote to Mr X about the outstanding PCN, visited his property and took payment from him for the other PCN.
6. My findings on this point are based on the evidence provided by Mr X which shows a Notice of Enforcement from the bailiffs dated 13 November 2024 which relates to PCN 1 and an Order for Recovery from TfL dated 13 November 2024 which relates to PCN 2.
7. Following receipt of the correspondence Mr X paid PCN 2 but he did not pay PCN 1, likely because he did not notice the fact the correspondence showed two different PCN references. The bailiffs visited Mr X on 29 November 2024, which was after the deadline for payment, and this incurred further fees which Mr X duly paid.
8. Mr X suggests he has paid twice for the same PCN but this is not the case. Further, it shows why neither TfL nor the bailiffs had any record of Mr X’s payment for PCN 2 against the debt owed for PCN 1.
9. Because I can see no evidence of fault in TfL’s collection of the fines I cannot uphold Mr X’s complaint or recommend any remedy for him.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by TfL or its bailiffs.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman