Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice for a congestion charge contravention. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to make representations to Transport for London and appeal to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Transport for London (TfL) has continued to pursue him for payment of a penalty charge notice (PCN) for a congestion charge contravention. This is despite him providing information to show he paid the congestion charge.

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 has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. We we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right but cannot investigate if they have already used it. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. TfL confirms Mr X has three outstanding PCNs for congestion charge contraventions. He has appealed against two of the PCNs to London Tribunals but London Tribunals rejected his appeals. He has not appealed against the final PCN.
7. In response to his complaint TfL offered Mr X the opportunity to pay all three PCNs at the rate of £15 per PCN. This is the amount of the congestion charge itself. But Mr X says he will not pay as he has paid the charges already.
8. It is a matter for Mr X to decide whether and when to pay the PCNs. But TfL is entitled to pursue him for payment, including by instructing enforcement agents (bailiffs) to visit his property and remove his belongings. The fact he continues to dispute the PCNs does not mean TfL must cease all further action, and the fact it has not is not evidence of fault.
9. We cannot investigate any complaint about the two PCNs Mr X has appealed against; Mr X’s appeals to London Tribunals remove our discretion and we cannot consider the same issues taken into account by the Adjudicator in reaching their decision. The Adjudicator’s decision clearly references Mr X’s claim that he had paid the congestion charges for the dates in question but concludes there is no evidence to support this claim.
10. We do have discretion to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the one PCN he has not taken to London Tribunals, but I can see no good reason to exercise it in this case. Mr X has shown he is able to use the appeals process, which is free and relatively easy to follow, and his argument is that the contravention did not occur. This provides him with a valid ground of appeal and I have seen nothing to show it would not have been reasonable for him to appeal. The complaints process does not provide an alternative way to challenge a PCN.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has appealed against two of the three PCNs issued by TfL and if he had wished to challenge the third, it would have been reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman