Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of Transport for London’s enforcement agent. This is because there it is unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Transport for London’s (TfL’s) enforcement agent (bailiff) misled him about paying a debt relating to several penalty charge notices (PCNs). He says the bailiff told him to pay the debt and then apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) to reinstate his right of appeal but he believes this was wrong.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. TfL issued Mr X five PCNs which he says he did not receive; he says he only became aware of the PCNs when TfL’s bailiff visited him at home and clamped his car.
5. Mr X says the bailiff wrongly told him to pay the PCN and apply to the TEC when they should have told him to apply to the TEC immediately and pay, if required, later on. Mr X paid the debt in full and applied to the TEC but the TEC refused his application. Mr X believes his payment, following the bailiff’s advice, ‘virtually guaranteed’ the TEC would reject his application.
6. We cannot speculate as to whether the bailiff’s advice affected the TEC’s decision. This was a matter for the TEC and if Mr X disagrees with its decision he should have applied for a review.
7. On the substantive point, the bailiff’s advice to Mr X was not clearly incorrect or flawed. The TEC issued them a warrant of control to collect payment from Mr X and they visited his property and clamped his car, as they were entitled to do.
8. While Mr X could have applied to the TEC as soon as he found out about the PCNs from the bailiff, it is unlikely we could say this would have led to any significantly different outcome. The bailiff did not have to wait for Mr X to file individual applications for each of the five PCNs before taking further action and even if Mr X had applied immediately, it is unlikely this would have changed what happened.
9. This is because bailiffs will usually wait for confirmation from their client as the debtor before acting on any application to the TEC. To get to this point the TEC would have had to accept the applications as valid, confirm the applications to TfL and TfL would then have had to direct the bailiff to stop any further action. This process takes time and the effect of the notification would have been to stop the bailiff from taking any further action, rather than requiring it to reverse action they had already taken.
10. In any event, because the TEC refused Mr X’s applications the full amount of the PCNs, including the bailiff’s fees, was payable. TfL has agreed to refund part of Mr X’s payment as a gesture of goodwill, but it declined to refund the bailiff’s fees and I have seen no basis for us to say it must. It is therefore unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by TfL or to show its actions caused Mr X significant injustice. TfL has agreed to refund part of Mr X’s payment and it is unlikely investigation would achieve significantly more for him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman