Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about a penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London. This is because Ms X is not liable for the PCN but she has appealed against it with the permission of the vehicle's owner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by Transport for London (TfL) for stopping in a yellow box junction. She says TfL failed to properly consider exercising its discretion to cancel the PCN and gave her misleading advice about the right of appeal to London Tribunals. She also complains about TfL’s escalation of the case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right but cannot investigate if they have already used it. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Liability for a PCN rests with the owner/registered keeper, who in this case is Ms X’s former partner rather than Ms X herself. While Ms X was driving the vehicle at the time of the contravention and is therefore uniquely placed to put forward her reasons for stopping in the yellow box junction, this is not relevant to the question of liability which is set by law.
8. Ms X obtained the owner’s permission to make representations against the PCN on their behalf but TfL refused them. Ms X says TfL did not properly consider whether to exercise its discretion to cancel the PCN, focusing instead on the fact there was evidence to show the contravention occurred. Ms X considers it fettered its discretion on this point so she challenged the response but TfL directed her to London Tribunals.
9. Ms X appealed to London Tribunals, who also noted she was not liable for the PCN but agreed to consider her appeal with the owner’s consent. While the Adjudicator could not consider Ms X’s argument of mitigating circumstances they did look at whether TfL had properly considered her representations. The Adjudicator considered whether there had been ‘procedural impropriety’ by TfL in its consideration of Ms X’s appeal but found there had not; they therefore dismissed Ms X’s appeal.
10. Because Ms X has appealed against the PCN we have no jurisdiction to consider any complaint about its issue or TfL’s consideration of Ms X’s representations, whether the complaint is from Ms X or her former partner.
11. We will not investigate Ms X’s concerns about TfL’s escalation of the case because this does not directly or significantly affect her. Ms X has taken it upon herself to dispute the PCN because she was driving the vehicle at the time the contravention occurred but any injustice from this it is not the direct result of TfL’s actions. TfL issued the PCN to Ms X’s former partner and it is they who are liable for the PCN and responsible for challenging or paying it. Ms X’s involvement in the case was entirely her choice and we would not therefore recommend a remedy for her.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about TfL’s consideration of her representations against a PCN because she has appealed to London Tribunals. We will not investigate her complaint about TfL’s escalation of the case because this does not directly or significantly affect her.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman