The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how Transport for London recovered a debt after Penalty Charge Notices were not paid. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X says enforcement agents acting on behalf of Transport for London (TFL) recovered his car after he had not paid Penalty Charge Notices (PCN’s). Mr X says after they had recovered his car, he told the enforcement agents he was vulnerable. Mr X says the enforcement agents sold his car and did not give proper consideration that he was vulnerable, and this caused him stress.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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 X and TFL.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says that he received 20 PCN’s for driving his car to hospital. Mr X did not pay these charges, nor did use his right of appeal to TFL or to The London Tribunal to challenge the PCN’s under mitigating circumstances.
In April 2021, under the direction of TFL, enforcement agents recovered Mr X’s car. Following this Mr X wrote to the enforcement agents telling them he was vulnerable and should have been given time to take advice before they recovered his car.
Mr X did not provide any evidence he told TFL he was vulnerable before they directed the enforcement agents to begin the action to recover his car.
From information provided by TFL, Mr X had received 20 PCN’s for a combination of congestion charges and using his car in the ultra low emission zone and was asked if he was able to repay the debt after his car was recovered. Mr X was not able to pay the debt and the enforcement agents sold his car.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman