Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s delay in refunding Mr X’s payment for a penalty charge notice. This is because Transport for London has now refunded the payment and paid Mr X an additional £30 and this provides a suitable remedy for the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Transport for London (TfL) delayed in refunding his payment for a penalty charge notice (PCN) following a successful appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X’s representative (Mr Y) and the Authority.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. TfL acknowledges it delayed in refunding Mr X’s payment of £80 but confirms it completed the refund on 8 December 2025. It has also sent Mr X a cheque for £30 for the injustice caused by the delay.
6. While Mr Y believes TfL should pay him £100 I am satisfied the £30 payment provides a sufficient remedy for the injustice caused by the delay. I do not therefore consider further investigation is warranted, or that it is likely to achieve significantly more for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because TfL has provided a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by its delay.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman