The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint about Penalty Charge Notices issued by Transport for London (TfL) for moving traffic offences. It would have been reasonable for Mr F to appeal against the notices to London Tribunals, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the way TfL has issued the PCNs or rejected Mr F’s representations on them to warrant our involvement.
The complaint
Mr F says he received Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) for entering the congestion charging and Ultra Low Emissions zones. (TFL). He says he immediately appealed but this was adjudicated by a third party who failed to consider the basis of his appeal given his poor health.
Mr F says he would like TFL to reconsider his case, refund him the money that he paid and compensate him for all the mental stress.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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) London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr F.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr F asked TfL to consider cancelling the PCNs, but it rejected his arguments. It also explained he could appeal against the notices to London Tribunals, a statutory body. Mr F decided to pay the penalty charges instead.
If Mr F disputed the PCNs it would be reasonable to expect him to appeal to London Tribunals as the body set up for that purpose. When it rejected his first representations TfL explained why, and it is not open to the Ombudsman to question its decision as there is no evidence of procedural fault we could investigate. Neither Mr F’s disagreement with TfL’s decision nor his belief it did not give enough weight to his arguments amounts to evidence of fault.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for him to use his right of appeal to challenge the PCNs, and there is not enough evidence of fault by TfL to warrant us investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman