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 there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Transport for London (TfL) did not send him a notice of rejection in response to his representations against a penalty charge notice (PCN) in time for him to appeal to London Tribunals. He says London Tribunals told him he could challenge TfL’s actions at court but TfL has not registered the PCN so he is unable to do this.

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 TfL.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. TfL has confirmed it received Mr X’s formal representations on 5 November 2024 but says it rejected them on 28 November 2024. It is clear Mr X did not receive the notice of rejection but there was no requirement to send this by registered post and there is not enough evidence, on balance, to show TfL did not send it. We cannot therefore say it was at fault for the way it dealt with Mr X’s representations.
6. While it is correct that a motorist may challenge the escalation of a PCN with a court (the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court) by making a witness statement, this is only possible where the motorist has not paid the PCN and the issuing authority has already registered the unpaid PCN as a debt. This is not the case here as Mr X paid the PCN before TfL took the matter to court. Mr X did not therefore have the option to make a witness statement but this is not due to any fault by TfL. We cannot therefore say it must take the process back to an earlier stage and reinstate his right of appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by TfL.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman