Transport for London (19 001 854)

Category : Transport and highways > Traffic management

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 26 Jun 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms X complained Transport for London about its failure to adhere to a Court Order revoking several Penalty Charge Notices. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because Transport for London accepted it was at fault and has proposed suitable redress.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complained Transport for London (TfL) about its failure to adhere to a Court Order revoking several Penalty Charge Notices. She says TfL agreed it had made a mistake in not directing its enforcement agents to stop their action. She said TfL agreed to compensate her but had since failed to send her the agreed financial redress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a body has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered the information put in by Ms X with her complaint. I have also considered Transport for London’s response.
  2. Ms X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman TfL had failed to tell its enforcement agents to suspend their action in contravention of a court order. She said the visit from the enforcement agents had been upsetting and intimidating.
  2. Ms X said TfL had accepted there had been an administrative error. She said it agreed to approve a payment of £50 as a goodwill gesture because of the frustration and inconvenience it had caused.
  3. Ms X complained TfL had failed to honour its offer within the stated time frame.
  4. The Ombudsman asked TfL for its comments on Ms X’s complaint. We asked TfL to consider the Ombudsman’s scale of redress for distress, which begins with £100 as the lowest figure.
  5. TfL said it had sent Ms X the cheque, when it said it would. It said it would cancel the undelivered cheque.
  6. TfL agreed to issue a cheque for £100, within the next 10 days and send it by recorded delivery to Ms X.

Analysis

  1. TfL has reviewed Ms X’s case and taken suitable action. It could not have known the cheque it sent to Ms X had not been delivered.
  2. The Ombudsman will not investigate a complaint if the body involved has already provided a suitable remedy. We are satisfied with the actions Transport for London has taken, and proposes to take, to redress Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because Transport for London has provided a suitable remedy. We are satisfied with the actions Transport for London has taken and proposes to take to redress Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page