Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about TfL agents taking possession and release of a motor car through a civil enforcement procedure. There is not enough evidence of fault by TfL or its enforcement agents so it does not warrant investigation, and it would be reasonable for the complainant to appeal to a tribunal against more recent penalty charge notices if TfL does not cancel them.

The complaint

1. Mr X says enforcement agents clamped and seized his car for unpaid penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued to its former owner, then released it to a third party rather than to Mr X. Mr X also says the person continues to incur penalty charges about the car, which he now receives as the current registered keeper. Mr X says the situation has left him without means of transport and causes him stress and financial burden. He wants compensation and an explanation of why this has happened.

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 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X bought a car in 2022 from a motor dealer, but did not receive or chase up the new registration documents from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) until after or around the time of events in this complaint.
8. Enforcement agents for TfL immobilised and took possession of the car. Relevant notices would have gone to the registered keeper at the time, which may not have been Mr X. Someone paid the debt being enforced and TfL or its agents authorised release of the car, which was collected by a third party. They had refused to release the car to Mr X because the documents he had were not enough. When he had applied to DVLA and received a new registration document showing his name, the agents had already released the car.
9. So, we cannot say the enforcement agents acting for TfL were at fault in releasing the car to a person with valid documents showing them as the registered keeper or owner. Nor can we hold TfL responsible for the actions of the person who took Mr X’s car, and it is their actions which caused the injustice he claims, not those of TfL or its agents.
10. Mr X is also unhappy about PCNs he has received since then, which result from the actions of the third party. But this is not the direct result of TfL’s actions and each PCN carries a right of appeal. Mr X has reported the car as stolen. It would be reasonable for Mr X to ‘make representations’ to TfL about each PCN as provided in law, and provide the crime reference number to TfL as part of that. If TfL rejects his representations it would be reasonable for him to appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by TfL or its agents to warrant it, and we could not hold TfL responsible for any fraudulent actions of a third party so we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman