Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about Transport for London’s issue and escalation of a penalty charge notice. This is because Mrs X has appealed against the penalty charge notice and applied to the court to challenge Transport for London’s escalation of the case.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about Transport for London’s (TfL’s) handling of her correspondence about a penalty charge notice (PCN). She says TfL failed to take account of the difficulties she had in paying the relevant charge and instead increased the amount of the PCN.

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. 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. (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 Mrs X’s representative, Mr Y.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. TfL issued Mrs X a PCN for using the Blackwall Tunnel without paying the relevant charge. Mr Y made representations against the PCN explaining they had tried to pay the charge online but were confused about the payment process and had contacted TfL for help. They contacted TfL’s customer service online asking for help but did not receive a response within the three-day payment window.
10. TfL rejected Mr Y’s representations and Mr Y appealed to London Tribunals on Mrs X’s behalf. Because Mrs X has exercised her right of appeal against the PCN the restriction at Paragraph 3 applies. We cannot therefore investigate any complaint about the PCN itself, or TfL’s handling of Mr Y’s representations against it.
11. Mr Y says they did not receive the appeal decision until several months after London Tribunals sent it. He says that as a result Mrs X could not pay the PCN at the discounted rate of £90, which TfL had agreed to accept if paid within 14 days. But this is not an issue of complaint against TfL and Mrs X has sought a remedy for it with the TEC. We cannot therefore investigate it further.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We cannot investigate this complaint. This is because Mrs X has used the alternative remedies available to her to challenge the PCN and TfL’s escalation of the case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman