Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about congestion charge penalty charge notices. The law prevents the Ombudsman from considering the penalty charge notices themselves. He is unlikely to find other fault by Transport for London has caused the complainant significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, has complained about how Transport for London (TfL) has dealt with issues arising from penalty charge notices. Tfl issued the penalty charge notices for entering the London congestion charging zone without paying the required charge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

Legal restrictions

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 can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint when someone has exercised their right of appeal to a tribunal; we have no discretion in this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. The courts have decided this restriction applies even if the appeal could not provide a remedy for all the claimed injustice.
6. The courts have also said that we cannot investigate a complaint about any action concerning a matter which is itself out of our jurisdiction.

Discretionary powers

7. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’.
8. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation for any reason. For example, we may decide not to investigate if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint. I have also seen the public register maintained by London Tribunals and information on the Companies House website.

Back to top

What I found

Background

10. TfL enforces the congestion charging zone and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and associated Regulations. TfL and motorists must follow these procedures.
11. In law, the owner of vehicle is responsible for any penalty charges regardless of who was driving at the time of the contravention. This is most often the person registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) as the keeper of the vehicle. Enforcement authorities will first send any formal documents using keeper details provided by the DVLA.
12. There is a right of appeal against a congestion charge penalty charge notice to London Tribunals which is a statutory tribunal. An appeal to London Tribunals is free and relatively easy to use. It is also the way in which Parliament expects people to challenge a penalty charge notice. For these reasons, the restriction I describe in paragraph 3 generally applies.

What I found

Summary of events

13. In March 2017 TfL issued several penalty charge notices in relation to a vehicle owned by Company Y. It sent them to the address of the vehicle owner registered at the DVLA; this was also Mr X’s home address.
14. Company Y appealed against all the penalty charge notices to London Tribunals. Mr X represented Company Y at the appeals.
15. In October 2017, London Tribunals rejected all the appeals and ordered Company Y to pay the required penalty charges. Company Y did not pay the penalty charges and so TfL continued to take recovery action.
16. Mr X says Company Y went out of business in October 2018 but is now trading again from a different address. Mr X says he returned documents sent to Company Y at his home address but Tfl continued to pursue recovery action and he was visited by bailiffs.
17. Mr X says he told TfL the new address for Company Y. This is the same address as that of a company of which Mr X is shown as being a director on the Companies House website.

Analysis

18. The penalty charge notices themselves have been subject to an appeal to London Tribunals and we have no jurisdiction to consider a complaint about them.
19. I have considered if fault by TfL in how it has pursued the unpaid penalty charges has caused Mr X injustice we should investigate.
20. Company Y did not pay the penalty charges when it was ordered to do so following the unsuccessful appeals. This was at a time when Mr X represented Company Y and he attended the appeals on its behalf. TfL only began recovery action because Company Y did not make the required payments.
21. It appears TfL sent some documents relating to the penalty charge notices to Mr X’s home address, but not to him personally. Bailiffs also visited Mr X’s home seeking to recover the debt from Company Y. While this may be unfortunate, taking into account all the circumstances, I do not consider we are likely to find fault by TfL caused Mr X injustice that would warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by TfL which is in our jurisdiction has caused Mr X significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman