Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s handling of Mr X’s correspondence about a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to London Tribunals. Any injustice resulting from Transport for London’s delay is also not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Transport for London (TfL) delayed in sending him evidence of a prohibited right turn for which he received a penalty charge notice (PCN). He says this affected his ability to respond appropriately to the PCN and resulted in an increase in the amount of the penalty charge.

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

7. When Mr X received the PCN he wrote to TfL asking for evidence of the prohibited right turn as he said the images available were blurry and did not look like his car. TfL treated Mr X’s correspondence as representations against the PCN and issued a ‘notice of rejection’ a few days later. This offered Mr X an opportunity to pay the PCN at the discounted rate of £80 for 14 days or appeal to London Tribunals. Mr X did neither so after 14 days the full rate of £160 became payable. When Mr X still did not pay TfL issued a charge certificate, increasing the amount to £240.
8. TfL provided Mr X with further evidence of the contravention on 7 April 2025 and Mr X complained to TfL on 14 April. He paid the PCN on 14 May 2025.
9. While there may have been some delay by TfL in dealing with Mr X’s request for evidence it did not cause him significant injustice. Local authorities should generally deal with information requests within one month and TfL exceeded this timeframe by just over two weeks.
10. Had TfL responded within one month the amount of the penalty charge would have been £160 but Mr X paid at the increased rate of £240. The additional charge amounts to £80 and this is not significant enough to warrant investigation.
11. Further, Mr X knew that if he did not pay the PCN the amount of the penalty charge would increase. The alleged delay did not prevent him from paying and if he had truly felt the images provided did not show his car and/or that he did not commit the contravention it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals. The possibility that TfL’s evidence may show it was his car did not stop Mr X from exercising his right of appeal and if TfL had still not provided the evidence he could have raised this with the Adjudicator as part of his appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal against the PCN to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman