Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about two penalty charge notices issued in 2022. This is because the complaint is late and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to challenge the penalty charge notices by appealing to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains Transport for London (TfL) issued him two penalty charge notices (PCNs) for entering the congestion charge zone without paying the charge in 2022. He says he has sent evidence to show he paid the charge but TfL has now registered the cases with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court and instructed enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover payment from him.

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 has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. TfL issued the PCNs in 2022 and Mr X knew about them at the time. The complaint is therefore late and we would have expected Mr X to complain to us sooner.
8. However, even if Mr X had complained sooner it is unlikely we would have investigated. This is because the complaint concerns the validity of the PCNs issued by TfL. The PCNs carried a right of appeal to London Tribunals and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use this right to challenge them. As part of his appeal London Tribunals could have considered Mr X’s evidence of the congestion charge payments and if it was satisfied the contraventions did not occur it could have cancelled the PCNs. The appeals process is free and relatively easy to follow and I have seen nothing to show it would have been unreasonable for Mr X to use it.
9. If however there were issues with the process followed by TfL which prevented Mr X from using his right of appeal he may be able to make a late statutory declaration to the TEC. Mr X says TfL told him to do this but it would have taken too long, however this is not a good reason not to follow the process.
10. If any of the grounds set out in the statutory declaration apply to Mr X's case he should make an application to file a declaration ‘out of time’. While the TEC considers Mr X’s application TfL must put any further action by its bailiffs on hold. The TEC has the power to take the PCNs back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the PCNs and reinstating Mr X’s right of appeal. If the TEC refuses Mr X’s application he may ask for a review of its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is late and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman