Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about not receiving Transport for London’s rejection of her representations against a penalty charge notice because Ms X has taken the matter to court. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about Transport for London’s escalation of the case after her unsuccessful appeal to London Tribunals because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains she did not receive a ‘notice of rejection’ from Transport for London (TfL) in response to her representations against a penalty charge notice (PCN). She also complains TfL escalated the case and increased the amount of the penalty charge from £160 to £240 before she received London Tribunals’ decision on her appeal.

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 could take the matter to court. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court but cannot investigate if the person has already been to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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.
6. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Because Ms X did not receive TfL’s notice of rejection she applied to the TEC to take the PCN process back to an earlier stage. The TEC accepted Ms X’s application and reinstated her right of appeal against the PCN. Ms X’s application to the TEC brings any complaint about her not receiving the original notice of rejection outside our jurisdiction, as set out at Paragraph 4. We cannot therefore investigate this issue.
9. We have jurisdiction to look at TfL’s escalation of the case after London Tribunals refused Ms X’s appeal, but there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation. TfL is not responsible for delivering London Tribunals’ decision and because Ms X did not pay the PCN as directed by London Tribunals in its decision, it was entitled to escalate the case to the next stage. While this is unfortunate for Ms X it does not show any fault by TfL and we cannot therefore recommend any remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint that she did not receive TfL’s notice of rejection. This is because Ms X has taken the matter to the TEC. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about TfL’s escalation of the PCN because there is not enough evidence of fault in its actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman