Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the enforcement of a Penalty Charge Notice. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to seek to regain their appeal rights, and then to appeal to a tribunal. We will not investigate part of this complaint because there is another body better placed to consider it.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council failed to follow the correct procedure for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and denied them their right to appeal against it. They say the matter has wrongly progressed through the enforcement procedure.
2. Mrs X also complains about the Council’s handling of her data and her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court or use 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 go to court or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(6)(a) and (c), as amended)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for the rest of England. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), part of the county court, considers applications to set the PCN process back where there has been procedural fault.
6. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information from the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mrs X was issued with a PCN in July 2025. The Council rejected representations in August 2025. Mrs X says correspondence about the PCN was sent to her previous address and the Council would not update their records with her new address.
9. We will not investigate the Council’s handling of the PCN as it is reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the TEC.
10. Mrs X should raise her concerns about the Council’s handling of her data with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as they are better placed to deal with complaints of this nature.
11. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to investigate how a Council has handled a complaint if the substantive matter does not fall to be investigated. That is the case here.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because it is reasonable to expect the complainant to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to regain their appeal rights, and may then appeal if the TEC agrees. We will not investigate part of this complaint as the ICO is better placed to do so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman