Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Transport for London taking enforcement action to recover an unpaid penalty charge notice. This is because the complainant could have reasonably taken the matter to court and/or appealed a statutory tribunal for an independent adjudicator to consider. The law says we have no jurisdiction to investigate in either of these circumstances.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr P) complains Transport for London (TfL) did not consider his representations against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued in respect of a parking contravention. He says he provided TfL a copy of a letter sent to the Driver and Vehicle Licencing Agency (DVLA) that he was no longer the keeper of the vehicle at the time the PCN was issued. However, Mr P says TfL wrongly responded to this by pursuing the amount it deemed was owed by using bailiffs.
2. In summary, Mr P says the alleged fault has caused significant distress and anxiety. He says he is not responsible for the penalties and feels he has been treated unfairly. As a desired outcome, Mr P wants TfL to waive the penalties and cease enforcement using bailiffs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. If the recipient of a PCN does not pay the amount set out, or make any informal challenge against it, the issuing authority may issue a Notice to Owner (NtO) to the vehicles’ registered keeper. This provides an opportunity for the keeper to either pay the PCN at the full amount or make formal representations against it within 28 days of the date of the NtO. If no formal representations are received, the issuing authority can register the amount demanded as a debt at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) which forms part of county court. The issuing authority can them apply to the court for an order of recovery which enables it to pass on recovery of the debt to a bailiff or other enforcement agent. If formal representations are received within the 28 day period, the issuing authority may either accept these and cancel the PCN, or issue a Notice of Rejection (NtR) to the registered keeper. The recipient has a right to appeal to an independent adjudicator (which acts as a staturory tribunal) within 28 days of receiving a NtR.
7. TfL issued Mr P a NtO because he was the registered keeper of the vehicle. However, he says he sold the vehicle and was no longer its legal owner prior to the PCN being issued. Mr P raised this issue with the DVLA shortly after receiving a NtO, though the evidence shows he did not make formal representations to TfL until March 2024. This was outside the 28 day period by which a recipient may lodge a formal representation. At the time Mr P challenged the PCN, TfL had already completed the process of registering the debt with the TEC and taking enforcement action following it obtaining an order for recovery. TfL informed Mr P it had obtained this order to enforce the PCN amount and that it could not accept his late representations. TfL informed Mr P that he could file a statutory declaration at the TEC to set aside the order if he felt he had grounds to do so.
8. The law says we cannot normally investigate where the complainant could reasonably take the matter to court or appeal to a tribunal. In Mr P’s case, he either received the NtO issued by TfL and failed to make formal representations in time, or not. If he did, he could seek relief by taking the matter to county court by filing a statutory declaration with the TEC in order to set aside the order of recovery. If the NtO was received, Mr P could have responded in time which would have enabled him to appeal to a tribunal. There is no evidence to suggest it would be unreasonable to expect Mr P to have perused either route. We therefore have no jurisdiction to investigate this complaint. In any event, TfL has since confirmed it has cancelled the PCN and advised its bailiffs to take no further action. Even if we did have jurisdiction to investigate, we would not do so on the basis further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr P could have reasonably take the matter to court or appealed to a statutory tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman