Summary: Mr B complains about TfL’s handling of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued to him. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence that fault by TfL caused Mr B’s injustice and an investigation is unlikely to lead to the outcome Mr B seeks.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says TfL wrongly issued him with a PCN when he had paid the Congestion Charge even before the PCN had been issued. He says he did not receive a response to his representation challenging the PCN and that as a result of the enforcement of the debt he has had to pay costs which he wants reimbursed along with a compensation payment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr B and reviewed the information he and TfL provided. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. On 15 August 2018 TfL observed Mr B’s car in the Congestion Charging Zone without payment or exemption and so issued a PCN by post on 22 August to Mr B’s business address at which the car was registered. TfL says having received neither payment nor a representation against the PCN despite sending out two further notices, it registered the debt at the County Court and a warrant was issued for the monies owed and bailiffs were instructed.
6. Mr B says he paid the Congestion Charge on 18 August even before the PCN had been sent to him. However, while he says he had intended to pay for entering the zone on 15 August he had actually paid for the day of 17 August. This left the PCN for 15 August outstanding and it was this that TfL pursued.
7. Mr B made a representation against the issuing of the PCN but TfL rejected this as being made too late and outside the time limit allowed. Mr B made an out of time statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) saying he had not received the TfL letter rejecting his representation but his application was rejected by the TEC.
8. Believing he had paid the 15 August charge when he paid on 18 August, Mr B complained to TfL. It explained it viewed the PCN as having been properly issued and administered and made clear that while it had received a payment on 18 August covering the daily charge for 17 August, the date of the contravention for which the PCN had been issued was 15 August and no payment had been received for that date.

Assessment

9. It appears Mr B’s situation has come about because he thought the charge he paid on 18 August would cover him for entering the zone on 15 August. However, when he made payment on 18 August, he would only have had the option to pay for the previous charging day which was 17 August. As the payment deadline is only one day, the option to pay for 15 August had already passed and was not available.
10. This confusion on the part of Mr B was unfortunate but I have not seen any evidence to suggest it was caused as a result of fault by TfL. As no payment had been made for the 15 August contravention, TfL issued the PCN in accordance with its normal procedures.
11. There is a dispute between Mr B and TfL about the date Mr B made his representation. However, as his statutory declaration was considered and rejected by the TEC the Ombudsman cannot consider this issue now. Mr B used this alternative legal remedy and so this issue falls outside our jurisdiction.
12. Mr B says he had registered for TfL Autopay expecting it to make payment automatically but that it did not do so in this case. However, TfL has noted that his registration of the vehicle in question to the Auto Pay system took place some time after the contravention date.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence that fault by TfL caused Mr B injustice and an investigation is unlikely to lead to the outcome Mr B seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman