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 by the Authority and it is unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that due to issues with Transport for London’s (TfL’s) website he was unable to pay the charge for using the Blackwall/Silvertown tunnel online. Mrs X therefore phoned TfL to make payment by phone, but Mr X says it allocated the payment to the wrong date. TfL then issued a penalty charge notice (PCN) for non-payment of the charge, which Mr X says both he and his wife went to considerable time and effort to deal with.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. TfL confirms it no longer holds any record of the call from Mrs X referred to at Paragraph 1. This is because it has been more than three months since the call took place.
6. Mr and Mrs X say they asked to pay the charge for the date shown on the PCN but TfL disputes this. Because there is no contemporaneous evidence to prove exactly what was said during the call, we cannot say on the balance of probabilities that Mrs X asked to pay for the correct date or that the PCN resulted from any fault by TfL to allocate her payment correctly. It therefore follows that we cannot say TfL must remedy the injustice Mr X says he and Mrs X suffered from the issue of the PCN.
7. In response to Mr X’s complaint TfL has agreed to cancel the PCN but it has done so as a gesture of goodwill rather than due to any acceptance of fault.
8. Mr X is not the owner of the vehicle in question and was not therefore directly liable for the PCN; he hired the vehicle from a hire company which paid the PCN and passed the cost on to him along with an administration fee. TfL had no control over this arrangement or the costs charged to Mr X, which are a matter between Mr X and the hire company. Mr X also had no right of appeal against the PCN or any standing to challenge it with TfL directly.
9. As a result of the cancellation of the PCN TfL has issued a refund to the hire company, but neither TfL nor the Ombudsman can direct the hire company to pass this refund on to Mr X. If the hire company has not refunded Mr X’s payment, and Mr X wishes to pursue the matter, he should contact the hire company directly and may wish to seek legal advice.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by TfL and it is unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman