Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Transport for London (TfL) issued him a penalty charge notice (PCN) for stopping on a red route. He says TfL failed to properly consider his representations against the PCN and has now escalated the case following his unsuccessful 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 has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right but cannot investigate if they have already used it, unless we decide the appeal was misconceived. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Authority.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Although Mr X has appealed against the PCN to London Tribunals, his appeal focused on the reasons he committed the contravention- his mitigating circumstances- which were not a valid ground of appeal. The adjudicator could not therefore consider the reasons or cancel the PCN because of them. I therefore consider the appeal was misconceived and we therefore have jurisdiction to consider Mr X’s complaint.
9. However, our role is different from that of London Tribunals. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
10. It is clear Mr X committed a contravention by stopping on a red route outside designated stopping and parking bays. I cannot therefore say TfL was at fault for issuing the PCN.
11. I have seen TfL’s response to Mr X’s representations and this considers the points Mr X raised but declines to cancel the PCN. This is a decision TfL was entitled to make and I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way it was reached for us to question it.
12. While Mr X is clearly unhappy TfL escalated the case it was entitled to do so following his unsuccessful appeal. Mr X has now paid the PCN in full, including additional costs and surcharges, and the case is closed.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by TfL.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman