Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s escalation of two penalty charge notices. This is because Mr X has used the alternative court remedy available to him and we cannot investigate matters which have already been considered by the courts.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains he did not receive a response from Transport for London (TfL) to his representations against two penalty charge notices (PCNs) and was unaware it was pursuing the cases until he received contact from its enforcement agents (bailiffs). He has paid the bailiffs £425 but still owes more, which he says he cannot afford to pay.

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 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 about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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

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

Back to top

Final decision

7. We cannot investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has applied to the TEC to make late statutory declarations to challenge TfL’s escalation of the cases. The exclusion set out at Paragraph 3 therefore applies and we do not have jurisdiction in this matter. While I acknowledge the TEC has refused Mr X’s applications this does not bring the complaint back into our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman