Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s actions relating to the escalation of a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal against the penalty charge notice to London Tribunals and I have not seen enough evidence of fault by Transport for London or its enforcement agents to warrant further investigation. Mr X alleges the enforcement agents damaged his car and assaulted him but these are more appropriately matters for the police.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by Transport for London (TfL) for stopping in a yellow box junction. Mr X disputes the PCN and is unhappy the Council rejected his representations against it. Mr X says he tried to appeal to London Tribunals but they would not accept his appeal. He is unhappy TfL continued to escalate the PCN and says he did not receive any further correspondence about it until enforcement agents (bailiffs) visited his property and forced him to pay.

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.
6. 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)
7. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is part of Northampton County Court. It considers applications from local authorities to pursue payment of unpaid PCNs and from motorists to challenge local authorities’ pursuit of unpaid PCNs.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Authority.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. It is not for us to decide the validity of the PCN issued by TfL. This is a matter for the appeals process and London Tribunals. The appeals process is free and relatively simple to use and the decisions reached are binding on both parties.
11. I appreciate Mr X says he was unable to appeal to London Tribunals but they are the statutory body for dealing with appeals against PCNs issued by TfL and I have seen no evidence to support his claim that it was not accepting any appeals against TfL-issued PCNs at the time.
12. There is a set timescale for appealing to London Tribunals so if Mr X sought to appeal after the deadline it may have decided not to accept the appeal. But this is not a good reason to exercise our discretion to investigate. The question for us is whether it would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal at the relevant time and I have seen no good reasons to show it was not.
13. In the event Mr X applied to London Tribunals to appeal but did not hear back, he may wish to apply to the TEC to make a late statutory declaration. There are certain set grounds on which an application can be made and we would expect anyone who meets the criteria to use this process. The TEC has the power to take the process back to an earlier stage, reinstating appeal rights and reducing the amount of a PCN.
14. Mr X is also unhappy with the actions of TfL’s bailiffs but the issues he raises largely concern the legality of its actions and alleged criminality by the bailiffs who attended his property. TfL has addressed these issues in its response to Mr X’s complaint and it is unlikely we could add to its findings. Mr X ultimately paid the PCN so the bailiffs removed the clamp placed on his vehicle and took no further action. Any alleged criminal actions are a matter for the police, who attended the incident and conducted their own investigation into what happened. Mr X may also wish to complain about the bailiffs’ actions to the Enforcement Conduct Board.
15. Mr X also claims disability discrimination but we can reach no finding on this point. Whether TfL discriminated against Mr X is a legal issue which is more appropriate for consideration by the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the validity of the PCN is a matter for the appeals process and I am satisfied it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way TfL handled Mr X’s case or which affected his right to appeal, and the allegations he has made against the bailiffs are more appropriately a matter for the police.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman