Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about two penalty charge notices issued by Transport for London. This is because it would have been reasonable for Ms X to make representations against the penalty charge notices and appeal to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains Transport for London (TfL) has refused to cancel two penalty charge notices (PCNs) despite being found to have inadequate signage to warn of a prohibited turn and having cancelled previous PCNs for contraventions at the same location.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
5. 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 they have already been to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. If a motorist disputes a PCN they may make representations to the issuing authority and appeal to a Tribunal.
9. Ms X clearly disputes the PCNs she received from TfL and we would therefore have expected her to challenge the PCNs using this process. I have seen nothing to suggest it would not have been reasonable for Ms X to make representations to TfL and appeal to London Tribunals and I will not therefore exercise my discretion to investigate the complaint.
10. The information Ms X has provided suggests she believes there may have been procedural failures by TfL in its handling and escalation of the cases. But she has used her right to apply to the TEC to take one of the PCNs back to an earlier stage and if she believes her ability to appeal against the second PCN was affected by similar failures, it would have been reasonable for her to apply to the TEC on that case as well.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Ms X to make representations against the PCN and appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman