The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complains that TfL failed to properly deal with the revocation of her son’s PCNs following submissions to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. She also complained about the conduct of bailiffs. We found there was fault in the way Transport for London handled the case. There was a significant delay in making a refund. We recommended a payment to reflect this. We did not investigate the bailiff conduct further as it was unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome by doing so.
The complaint
Mrs X complains on behalf of her son, Mr Y. She complains that Transport for London (TfL) failed to properly respond to their complaint about bailiff actions when pursuing Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). She says there was an error by the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) which meant a declaration they made was not acted upon. She complains the bailiff would not listen to their explanation about this and when TfL were made aware of the issue by the Court it failed to deal with the matter properly. They paid the bailiff in full and sought a refund with interest.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered Mrs X’s complaint and the information she provided. We obtained documents and information from Transport for London and considered its response to the complaint.
Mrs X and TfL had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments I received before making a final decision.
What I found
In the summer of 2020 Mr Y was issued with two PCNs by TfL.
TfL says it did not receive any response. Because it did not receive a response, it went on to obtain a Charge Certificate and it passed the non-payment of the PCNs to bailiffs to follow up.
Although TfL did not receive representations from Mr Y, he lodged a Statutory Declaration with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). I understand he declared that he had sent representations for both PCNs but they had not been responded to.
Mr Y’s declarations were received by TEC in June, but due to an error on their part, they did not process them.
Bailiffs appointed by TfL attended Mr Y’s parents’ house in October 2020 following up a debt of £791. This was the cost of the unpaid PCNs and recovery fees. Mr Y complained the bailiff would not listen when his parents tried to explain the issues that had occurred at TEC. He also said the bailiff tried to levy against his parents cars and the van of a workman working on their house at the time. Mr Y’s father paid the full amount on a credit card. Mrs X told us she considered the bailiffs actions had been unreasonable.
In December 2020 TEC addressed the problem, and belatedly issued an order revoking both PCNs. It appears they contacted TfL about this on 17 December. However, TfL told us they only had contact from TEC in February 2021.
TfL told us that, due to an error on its part it took no further action in 2021 because the PCNs had been paid and the matter closed.
Following a complaint from Mrs X via the LGSCO, in March 2022, TfL agreed that it would accept payment of the PCNs at £65 each (the lower rate), and it would refund the remainder of what Mr Y’s parents paid as a gesture of goodwill.
TfL shared the comments the bailiff company made in 2022 concerning the visit to Mr Y’s parents’ property. The company stated it had no record of concerns being raised with them directly at the time. The bailiff did not recall a situation where he had declined to look at evidence and there was no camera footage of the incident because it occurred in 2020.
What should have happened In response to our enquiries on this complaint, TfL acknowledged that it should have acted on the revocation order and made a decision about how to process it in early 2021. The failure to do so was fault.
When the complaint was raised in 2022, it should have identified at that point that the revocation order had not been dealt with properly. In response to our enquiries TfL recognised, as a result of its failure to act on the revocation order in early 2021, the original refund it gave Mr Y was delayed for around a year. This could have been addressed sooner.
We have not investigated the concerns raised about the bailiff actions further. As this occurred in 2020 it is unlikely that further evidence will be available to pursue this element of the complaint robustly.
To recognise its failure to follow the correct procedures and to acknowledge the inconvenience Mr Y was put to, TfL offered to refund the £130 he paid for the two PCNs and make an additional payment of £100.
We appreciated TfL’s offer to remedy the complaint and the acceptance of the fault in handling of this case. We found that in addition to the refund of £130 PCN fees, TfL should pay Mr Y £200 to recognise the time trouble and inconvenience of bringing his complaint and the delay in the refund.
Agreed action
Within four weeks of my final decision: TfL agreed to make a payment to Mr Y of £330. This is to recognise its failure to follow the correct procedures concerning the revocation of his PCNs, to acknowledge the delay in refunding the appropriate sum and the inconvenience Mr Y was put to in pursuing the complaint.
Final decision
There was fault by TfL. I completed my investigation and closed my file on the basis the agreed actions are taken.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman