Exhibit 1

Transport for London

Date: 17January2O06

C Wimbledon 


Thank you for your letter concerning the above penalty charge notice.

I am pleased to confirm that due to the circumstances explained in your letter, the PCN has now been cancelled.

Please note that this does not affect the outcome of any other PCNs issued under similar circumstances.

Yours sincerely


Exhibit 2

Transport for London

21/03/2006

J Atas


Thank you for your letter concerning the above penalty charge notice.

I am pleased to confirm that due to the circumstances explained in your letter, the PCN has now been cancelled.

Please note that this does not affect the outcome of any other PCNs issued under similar circumstances.

Yours sincerely


Exhibit 3

8 February 2006

Dear Mr Winter

The Local Government Ombudsman has asked me to consider your complaint against Transport for London and to write to you. We have spoken by telephone. I am writing to you now to give you my provisional view on your complaint and to offer you the opportunity to comment on what I have to say.

As I understand it you complain that TfL wrongly issued you with a penalty charge notice (PCN) when it was alleged you contravened parking regulations.

I do not have any of the details of the PCN which was issued. But it appears you challenged its issue and Transport for London cancelled the PCN. So it seems to me that you have incurred no financial penalty because of the issue of the PCN. And it seems, from what you told me when we spoke that Transport for London cancelled the penalty without undue delay and so it seems that its issue will only have caused you minor inconvenience.

Parliament did not consider it necessary to introduce a scheme to reimburse motorists following the issue of a penalty unless the complainant had to appeal to the Parking and Traffic Appeal Service (PATAS) - the statutory tribunal set up to adjudicate on disputed penalty notices. And an authority is only ordered to pay compensation by PATAS in exceptional circumstances where the tribunal decides that an authority has acted frivolously or vexatiously. You did not need to appeal to PATAS and so it does not seem to me that in the circumstances you describe you are entitled to any compensation for the Authority's actions.

The Ombudsman operates under powers given to him by the Local Government Act 1974. Section 26(1) of the Act refers to the Ombudsman investigating complaints of injustice as a result of maladministration. There is therefore a necessity for the complainant to have suffered injustice before the Ombudsman may investigate a complaint. The Ombudsman is obliged to use the public funds allocated to him efficiently, economically and effectively; and to seek to obtain value for money. He considers that these obligations require him to exercise his discretion under Section 26(10) of the Act to pursue complaints only where the injustice is significant.

For the reasons given above it is my provisional view that you have not suffered a significant personal injustice sufficient to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. For this reason it is my view that we should not pursue your complaint.

However, I will not come to any final decision until you have had the opportunity to comment on what I have to say. If you have any comments to make, or further evidence which might affect my decision, please write to me within the next three weeks. If I do not hear from you by 1 March, we will not pursue your complaint further and, as required by the 1974 Act, I will send a copy of this decision letter to Transport for London's Chief Executive.

Yours sincerely

Moriarty


Exhibit 4

13 February 2006

Dear Mr Winter

Your complaint against Transport for London

Thank you for your e-mails of 9 and 10 February 2006 and your comments on my provisional view of your complaint. I have considered very carefully what you have to say. I am writing to you now to give you my decision on your complaint

You refer in your e-mail to the Memorandum of Understanding between the Commission and the Standards Board for England. You say that under Section 3.6 item 3 that the Commission can investigate complaints of maladministration and that under item 5, the Commission can investigate the actions of individual members in relation to allegations of injustice caused by maladministration.

May I draw your attention to a letter I wrote you on 6 October 2004 with reference to an earlier complaint you made against the London Borough of Islington when I defined for you the meaning of the word 'member'. A member in this context is an elected member - a councillor or Member of the GLA in other words, in the same way as a Member of Parliament is an elected member of that body. As far as I am aware none of the parking attendants or others involved with your complaint were elected members and so I do not see any relevance in the document you quote.

However, items 3 and 4 of the document do set out accurately the jurisdictional issues which affect your complaint. The Ombudsman can investigate complaints of maladministration but can only investigate where a complainant claims or appears to have suffered injustice.

.........

In this case you claim injustice, but it remains my view, having considered everything you have to say, that the injustice you have suffered is not sufficient to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Because it is my view that you have not suffered an injustice sufficient to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman, I have not investigated your complaint. For this reason I am unable to come to any conclusion on the maladministration you allege occurred.

So, for the reasons set out in my letter of 8 February and above, I confirm there are insufficient grounds to pursue your complaint. The Ombudsman's investigation will now be discontinued.

The Local Government Act 1974 requires the Ombudsman to inform Transport for London of the decision on your complaint and so I am sending a copy of my previous letter and this letter to the Authority's Chief Executive.

Yours sincerely

Moriarty


Exhibit 5


22 February 2006

Dear Mr Winter

Your complaint against Transport for London

Thank you for your e-mails of 14, 19 and 20 February 2006.

Because you have said you are dissatisfied with my decision on your complaint, your file and my decision will now be reviewed by a senior officer. The file has been passed to an Assistant Ombudsman to carry out the review and she will contact you with the result of the review when it is completed.

Yours sincerely

Moriarty


Exhibit 5


27 February 2006

Dear Mr Winter

Your complaint against Transport for London

Thank you for your e-mails of 24 February 2006.

I am sorry to say it is not possible to review my decision on your complaint against the London Borough of Islington made on 6 October 2004. If you would have liked that decision reviewed you should have written to us within 3 months of the decision with your reasons for requesting a review. You did not do so, and in accordance with our Data Protection Act policies, your file was destroyed 14 months after the decision was taken. We do however, keep copies of our provisional view and decision letters

I have put a copy of your latest e-mail on file and it will be considered with the other papers when the Assistant Ombudsman reviews my decision on your complaint against Transport for London.

Yours sincerely

Moriarty


Exhibit 6


March 2006

Dear Mr Winter

Your complaint against Transport for London

Thank you for your e-mails of 14, 19, 20, 24 and 28 February 2006. Because you have said you are unhappy with Mr Moriarty's decision on your complaint, the next step is for his decision to be reviewed by a senior officer. I have now carried out that review.

In his letter to you dated 8 February 2006, Mr Moriarty explained that because Transport for London had cancelled the penalty charge at the representation stage, it was his view that you had not suffered a sufficient injustice because of fault on the part of the Authority to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

But you say that you suffered considerable injustice. You say you suffered distress and were put to avoidable time and trouble. You say you spent hours researching the legal background to the issue of the PCN and that you sent five letters to the Authority and made numerous telephone calls before the PCN was cancelled.

But it seems to me that it was your choice to spend your time researching the legal background to your case against Transport for London. Parliament has set up a simple legal process whereby the recipient of a PCN can make representations to the issuing authority and if these representations are rejected, can appeal to a statutory tribunal. It did not seem to Mr Moriarty that following the first part of this statutory process was sufficient injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Having decided that your complaint was not one which he should investigate, it would have been improper for him to express any view on whether there was fault in the way the Authority either issued the PCN or dealt with your representations.

............

You asked for the review of Mr Moriarty's decision on your complaint against Transport for London to be conducted in the light of the decision taken on your complaint against Islington Council in October 2004. From a review of the decision letters on that complaint which are available to me, I see no inconsistency between the two decisions.

I have considered all the papers and I see nothing to suggest Mr Moriarty's decision on your complaint against Transport for London was wrong. I accept his view that you had not suffered a significant personal injustice because of fault on the part of the Authority. So, I am sorry to disappoint you, but Mr Moriarty's decision must stand.

Yours sincerely

J O'Malley

Assistant Ombudsman



Exhibit 7


12 April 2006

Your complaint against Transport for London

Thank you for your e-mails of 1 April 2006 and for bringing additional points to my attention. Because you appear to be dissatisfied with the conclusions Ms O'Malley has reached in reviewing the decision on your complaint, I have carried out a fresh review.

Your complaint was that you suffered injustice because Transport for London issued you with a Penalty Charge Notice when it alleged you had parked illegally. It was Mr Moriarty's view that as Transport for London had cancelled the PCN at the representation stage you had not suffered an injustice sufficient to warrant a formal investigation by me.

Having considered everything you have to say, I see nothing to suggest Mr Moriarty's decision was wrong. I am sorry to disappoint you, but I do not consider that there are reasonable grounds for reopening Mr Moriarty's decision of 8 February 2006, which accordingly must stand.

This letter completes my consideration of the decision on your complaint and I shall not enter into further correspondence about it. If you do write to my office again this will be read by my staff and acknowledged only, unless it contains material new information or you wish to pursue a fresh complaint about another matter. In either case, my staff will reply to you as appropriate.

Yours sincerely

T. Redmond