Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that Transport for London failed to respond to 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 he did not receive a notice of rejection from Transport for London (TfL) in response to his representations against a penalty charge notice (PCN). He says that as a result he missed the opportunity to pay the PCN at the discounted rate of £80, instead having to pay at the full rate of £160.

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 says the fact he did not receive the notice of rejection suggests that either TfL failed to send it or failed to ensure he received it. But there is no requirement for TfL to ensure a motorist receives a notice of rejection and there is not enough evidence to show, on the balance of probabilities, that TfL did not send it. There is therefore no basis for us to uphold the complaint or to recommend TfL refunds the additional £80 Mr X paid.

Back to top

Final decision

5. 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