Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the enforcement of a penalty charge notice as the complainant had the right to ask the court to look at her case.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains she did not receive a notice of rejection to her appeal against a penalty charge notice (PCN) Transport for London (TfL) issued to her for making a prohibited turn whilst driving. Ms X also complains she was given ten minutes to decide to pay the fine or take the matter to court, in a telephone call she had with TfL. Ms X feels she was unjustly treated and was caused stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault, or fault causing an injustice, to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background

7. Ms X says she did not receive a notice of rejection to her appeal against the PCN. On receipt of the charge certificate, which increased the amount payable to £240, Ms X telephoned TfL and is unhappy as she says during this call, she was given ten minutes to decide to pay the PCN discounted amount of £80 or take the matter to court.
8. In response to Ms X’s complaint, TfL stated that all notices had been sent correctly and that it is not responsible for any delivery delays by a third party. It explained that when Ms X called, the call taker used their discretion to accept payment of £80, the discounted amount, to close the case.

Back to top

My assessment

9. When Ms X contacted TfL about its escalation of the PCN, the choice was to pay £240 or use the procedure provided in law to challenge TfL’s enforcement of the PCN. It was open to Ms X to wait for the next notice in the process, the order for recovery, and at that point Ms X could have asked the court at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) to consider her case, that is, that she did not receive a response to her appeal. The TEC would have then decided what should happen next.
10. I recognise that Ms X says she felt under pressure to make a decision during the telephone call, but I consider it was reasonable to expect her to take her case to court, had she wished to challenge the matter further. I understand why Ms X decided to accept the offer to pay the discounted amount, but this was her choice and by doing so, the case was closed. The call taker used their discretion to offer the discounted amount, and it is unlikely we would find this to be fault or that it caused Ms X a significant injustice, as had the offer not been made, the amount payable by Ms X would have been £240.
11. For these reasons, I do not consider there are grounds for us to investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to have asked the court at the TEC to consider her case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman