Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained Transport for London (TfL) failed to respond properly to his correspondence about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) despite him having authority from the car hire company.
2. This led to the penalty increasing to a level Mr Y says is illegal and he says he spent several hours dealing with the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y hired a vehicle from a car company. During the hire time, TfL issued a Penalty Charge Notice which it sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the hire company. Mr Y wrote to TfL with a letter from the company giving him authority to deal with the matter just over a month after the PCN was issued.
6. TfL then wrote to the hire company, asking it to provide its consent to Mr Y dealing with the matter on its behalf. TfL says it told the hire company that it had 14 days to provide the required authority or the representations Mr Y had provided would not be considered. It also wrote to Mr Y to explain the steps it had taken with the hire car company. The penalty then progressed until it was paid. Mr Y says he was charged at a higher rate that he believes was legal. He approached us in November 2025.
7. The hire company had the option to transfer the PCN to Mr Y by contacting TfL and making representations to say that it had a hire agreement with Mr Y and he was the driver of the vehicle under a hire agreement at the time of the contravention. However, this did not occur.
8. TfL is only able to respond to representations against PCNs with the registered keeper of the vehicle, or where a vehicle is hired when liability for the PCN has been formally transferred from a hire company to the hirer. However, as Mr Y is neither of these, and the car hire company does not appear to have provided TfL with confirmation of its consent within the 14 days as it requested, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s lack of response to the representations from Mr Y to justify investigation. The arrangement between Mr Y and the car hire company is a matter between them and the car hire company had the option, specifically available for such cases, or transferring the liability to Mr Y.
9. Further, we could not say its actions caused Mr Y significant injustice. This is because Mr Y is not directly liable for the PCN and has only taken on responsibility for payment under his contract with the hire company. We could not therefore directly assign the cost Mr Y has been asked to pay, or the increased level of that cost, to any potential fault by the Council. Therefore, as any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained directly and is not significant enough to justify our involvement, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman