Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about penalty charge notices issued in relation to the London Congestion Charge. The complainant had a right of appeal against any penalty charge notice. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to look at decisions of the court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Ms B, has complained about penalty charge notices issued by Transport for London (TfL) in relation to the London Congestion Charge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint when someone has sought a remedy in court; we have no discretion in this. This restriction applies even of the court could not provide a remedy for all the claimed injustice. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Ms B said in her complaint. TfL also provided background information. I discussed a draft with Ms B before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. 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, although TfL has discretion not to pursue a penalty charge if it believes there are good reasons for this.

Summary of events

7. TfL issued a penalty charge notice to Ms B because it believed she had driven in the London congestion zone without paying the required charge.
8. Ms B had a right of appeal against the 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 and we will not look at a complaint that TfL should not have issued the penalty charge notice.
9. As Ms B did not pay the required penalty charge, TfL took enforcement action. It registered the unpaid penalty charge as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre at (TEC) Northampton County Court. The TEC issued a warrant for execution to TfL and it passed this to bailiffs to collect the debt.
10. After bailiffs removed her car, Ms B applied to the TEC to make a late statutory declaration that she had not received the penalty charge notice. Had this been successful, TfL would have reissued the penalty charge notice. Ms B would have a right of appeal against the new penalty charge notice and the restriction I describe in paragraph 3 would apply.
11. The TEC refused to allow Ms B to make a late statutory declaration. She applied to her local County Court to review the TEC’s decision. This required her to pay a court fee. The County Court decided Ms B could make a late statutory declaration which was accepted. As a result, TfL reissued the penalty charge notice and refunded all money Ms B had paid to it and the bailiffs’ charges.
12. Ms B made representations against the penalty charge notice which TfL decided to accept. Had it not done so, Ms B could have appealed to London Tribunals and the restriction I describe in paragraph 3 would apply.
13. Ms B has also referred to another penalty charge notice issued by TfL. Again, she had a right of appeal and so we will not look at a complaint that TfL should not have issued this notice.

Analysis

14. We will not look at a complaint about a penalty charge notice because Ms B had a right of appeal to London Tribunals. I have seen no reason she could not have appealed, if necessary.
15. Ms B has suggested TfL should refund the costs of her applications to the TEC and the County Court. There is no basis for this. The costs are set by the courts and paid to them; TfL plays no part in this. Her successful review of the TEC’s decision does not mean there was any fault by TfL. We have no jurisdiction to consider the actions of the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

16. SI have decided we will not investigate this complaint for the reasons set out in paragraphs 14 and 15.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman