Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because the complainant could have appealed to the tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains he is being harassed by bailiffs for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) which he disputes. He says he has a blue badge and has been unwell. Mr X wants the Council to recall the debt from the bailiffs and cancel the fine.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has 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 use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the letters the Council sent to Mr X about the PCN. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In 2023 the Council issued a PCN to Mr X for parking in a bay that was restricted to use by goods vehicles. Mr X made an initial challenge which the Council rejected. The Council offered another chance to pay at the reduced rate and explained how Mr X could pay or appeal.
7. The Council took no further action while Mr X was in a Breathing Space in 2023. The Council resumed action after the Breathing Space ended. The Council sent all the letters it was required to send to allow Mr X to either pay or appeal. Mr X did not respond to any of these letters, so the Council registered the debt in court and passed the case to bailiffs in 2025. The Council says Mr X has not notified the bailiffs of any vulnerabilities which might affect how the bailiffs handle his case. Mr X can contact the bailiffs if there is any information he thinks they should be aware of in terms of his health or any vulnerability.
8. I will not start an investigation because Mr X could have followed the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal if he wanted to dispute the PCN. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal because the tribunal is the correct organisation to consider if a council has issued a fine correctly. I appreciate Mr X has been unwell but, as he was well enough to make an initial challenge, and seek advice so he could enter a Breathing Space, then it is reasonable expect he would either have paid the PCN or appealed.
9. The case is now with bailiffs because Mr X neither paid nor appealed. This reflects the correct process for a council to take when someone has not responded to letters and has not paid nor appealed.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have followed the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman