Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about London Tribunals’ handling of Ms X’s request for a review of its decision to reject her appeal against a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by London Tribunals and we cannot say its actions directly resulted in the increase of the penalty charge as she claims.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about London Tribunals handling of her request for a review of its decision to refuse her appeal against a penalty charge notice (PCN). She says she did not receive a response from London Tribunals until more than three weeks after she made her request, and two weeks after the date of its decision. She says that as a result Transport for London (TfL), who issued the PCN, escalated the case and increased the amount of the penalty charge.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. I have no reason to doubt that Ms X did not receive London Tribunals’ decision on her review request until the date she says, but I cannot say this was the result of any fault by London Tribunals. There is no requirement to send review request decisions by registered post or to prove delivery within a set period of time and it is therefore just as likely that any delays rest with the postal service.
5. In the absence of any evidence to show, on the balance of probabilities, that London Tribunals delayed in issuing the review decision I cannot find it at fault or recommend a remedy for the injustice Ms X claims.
6. It is also relevant that at no time did either London Tribunals or TfL tell Ms X the PCN would be put on hold while Ms X sought a review of London Tribunals’ decision on her appeal. Ms X was aware London Tribunals had rejected her appeal and directed her to pay the PCN but she did not do so. I could not therefore conclude, even if there had been delay, that the increased cost Ms X seeks reimbursement for was the sole and direct cause of London Tribunals’ actions.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by London Tribunals or to show the injustice Ms X claims resulted from its actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman