Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that he lost the right to pay a moving traffic penalty at the discounted rate as there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Authority.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains he did not receive Transport for London’s (TfL) rejection of his appeal against a moving traffic penalty charge notice (PCN) and therefore lost the right to pay the PCN at the discounted rate.

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 impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. If an appeal is made to TfL against a moving traffic PCN within 14 days, TfL hold the charge at the discounted rate of £80 while it considers the appeal. TfL sent a notice of rejection of Mr X’s appeal to the address the Driver Vehicle and Licensing Agency (DVLA) held for him. Mr X had moved and not updated DVLA and so did not find out his appeal had been rejected until after the period to pay the discounted rate had elapsed.
7. I understand Mr X is unhappy about this, but his injustice does not arise from TfL fault as it must use vehicle keeper details as provided by DVLA. As Mr X had not updated DVLA, the statutory notice of rejection was sent to his old address. It was for TfL to decide how to proceed after Mr X told it he had moved and that it decided not to re-offer the discount was a decision for it to make. While Mr X is unhappy with this decision, his complaint does not evidence fault in the way it was made and so we cannot question the merits of it.
8. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the TfL.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman