London Borough of Croydon (24 020 259)

Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 20 Mar 2025

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s escalation of a penalty charge notice. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to challenge the escalation at court.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains he did not receive a response to his representations against a penalty charge notice (PCN) because the Council sent it to his old address. He says that as a result the Council escalated the case and instructed enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover payment from him. He then had to pay £280 to the bailiffs to settle the PCN.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
  3. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is part of Northampton County Court. It considers applications from local authorities to pursue payment of unpaid PCNs and from motorists to challenge local authorities’ pursuit of unpaid PCNs.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Because Mr X did not receive the Council’s response to his representations he may apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement/statutory declaration. If the TEC accepts his application it may order the Council to take the process back to an earlier stage, reinstating his right of appeal, reducing the amount of the PCN and removing the basis for the bailiffs’ fees. If the TEC refuses his application Mr X may apply for a review of its decision.
  2. This process provides a suitable remedy for the issue Mr X has complained about and I have seen nothing to suggest it would be unreasonable for Mr X to use it.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement/statutory declaration.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings