Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Transport for London’s failure to acknowledge or respond to his complaint about its handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because the issues he raised with Transport for London fall outside our jurisdiction and it would not be a good use of our resources to investigate its handling of his complaint in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about Transport for London’s (TfL) failed to acknowledge or respond to his complaint about its handling and escalation of a penalty charge notice (PCN). The complaint itself concerned TfL’s failure to respond to his representations against the PCN, the evidence it provided to London Tribunals as part of his appeal and its escalation of the case while his appeal was ongoing. He also complains about poor signage which he suggests led to the issue of the PCN.

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 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.. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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.
6. 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 the matter has already been considered and decided by a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
7. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X is also unhappy with the way TfL dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at complaints handling issues if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. I have therefore considered if we can and would investigate the issues Mr X raised with TfL and I have decided we cannot. We will not therefore investigate Mr X’s concerns about TfL’s handling of the complaint as it is unlikely this would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.
10. Firstly, Mr X complains TfL failed to respond to his representations against the PCN and escalated the case without properly taking account of wider issues with Royal Mail deliveries. Mr X says the process to apply to the TEC to take the process back to an earlier stage was very onerous and involved a number of trips to a local county court. We cannot investigate any complaint about this issue because Mr X has raised the matter with the TEC; the restriction set out at Paragraph 4 therefore applies.
11. Following Mr X’s application to the TEC the matter was referred to London Tribunals, who considered and decided Mr X’s appeal against the PCN. Because the PCN has already been the subject of an appeal to London Tribunals the restriction set out a Paragraph 6 applies. We cannot therefore investigate any complaint about the issue or validity of the PCN, the adequacy of TfL’s signs or the information TfL provided to London Tribunals as part of the appeals process.
12. I appreciate Mr X believes TfL’s signs are insufficient to warn of the restrictions leading to his PCN but this issue has been remedied through the appeals process and by the cancellation of the PCN. London Tribunals’ decisions do not create a precedent but all PCNs issued by TfL carry a right of appeal. In the event TfL issues further PCNs for similar alleged contraventions they may therefore make their own appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We cannot investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has challenged TfL’s escalation of the case with the TEC and appealed against the PCN itself with London Tribunals. The issues Mr X raises are all too closely linked to the use of these alternative remedies and it would not therefore be a good use of our resources to investigate TfL’s handling of his complaint about them as a separate issue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman