The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about Transport for London’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because Transport for London has agreed to cancel the notice and this provides a suitable remedy for the complaint.
The complaint
The complainant, Miss X, complains Transport for London (TfL) increased the amount of a penalty charge notice (PCN) despite having agreed to an extension to allow her to pay it. She also says TfL failed to provide a suitable response to her complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Miss X and the Authority.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
TfL maintains it dealt with the PCN properly but it has nevertheless agreed to cancel it. This provides a suitable remedy for the injustice Miss X claims and it is therefore unlikely we would recommend anything more.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because TfL’s agreement to cancel the PCN provides a suitable remedy for Miss X’s injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman