Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to make a witness statement/statutory declaration.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide sufficient support in relation to her challenge to a penalty charge notice (PCN). She says its online form had limited options which did not apply to her and she received no response to the information she provided.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’.
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. There are limited grounds in law for appeals against PCNs; these vary depending on the type of contravention concerned. A council’s online form may reflect the statutory grounds for appeal against the particular type of PCN but councils can consider any reasons put forward by the motorist in deciding whether to cancel a PCN.
9. Mrs X says she submitted an online form to challenge a PCN issued to her for stopping in a yellow box junction. She says she contacted the Council by telephone at least six times to ask about the outcome of her challenge but was unable to get anywhere. The Council has now increased the penalty charge from the initial discounted rate of £35 to more than £100.
10. The Council confirms it did not receive any challenge to the PCN from Mrs X and could not therefore respond. Mrs X has not paid the PCN and the Council has escalated it in accordance with the statutory process, registering the unpaid PCN as a debt with the TEC on 22 May 2025 and issuing Mrs X an ‘Order for Recovery’.
11. Now that the Council has registered the PCN with the TEC Mrs X may apply to make a witness statement/statutory declaration. Further information about this process will be included with the Order for Recovery. Mrs X may apply to the TEC on the grounds she made representations to the Council but did not receive a response. The TEC will then consider whether to cancel the registration of the PCN and take the process back to an earlier stage. If it does, this will reinstate Mrs X’s right of appeal and Mrs X may then challenge the PCN again.
12. We cannot hold the Council at fault for not receiving Mrs X’s challenge and I have seen nothing to suggest it would not be reasonable to expect her to use the alternative remedy available to her with the TEC. I will not therefore exercise my discretion to investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman