Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice from March 2024. This is because Mrs X has appealed to London Tribunals and applied to the court to cancel the Council’s escalation of the case. The Council reissued the penalty charge notice in February 2025 but has since said this was an error. Its cancellation of the PCN provides a suitable remedy for this issue and we would not therefore recommend anything more for Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council. She says she has repeatedly proved her innocence but the Council has harassed and bullied her. The Council has now cancelled the PCN but Mrs X says this is not sufficient. She wants the Council to pay her compensation.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal or a government minister or started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
6. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mrs X disputes liability for the PCN; she says she sold her car before the contravention took place and appealed to London Tribunals on this basis. London Tribunals dismissed Mrs X’s appeal but Mrs X did not pay, so the Council took further steps to recover payment from her. It registered the unpaid PCN as a debt with the TEC in August 2024 and instructed enforcement agents (bailiffs) to visit her home.
10. Mrs X contacted the Council in October 2024 and applied to the TEC to make a late witness statement/statutory declaration in November 2024. She did this on the grounds she did not receive the original PCN. The Council did not contest the application so the TEC accepted it. This took the process back to the initial stage but it did not cancel the PCN.
11. The Council then reissued the PCN in February 2025 and Mrs X made a further representation against it in March. At this point the Council noted it should have opposed Mrs X’s application rather than reissuing the PCN. It accepted this was an error and cancelled the PCN.
12. Mrs X says cancellation of the PCN is not an acceptable outcome as the Council has caused her 15 months of anxiety and distress despite her repeatedly proving her innocence. But we cannot investigate whether the PCN was valid as Mrs X has used her right of appeal to London Tribunals. London Tribunals refused Mrs X’s appeal and the Council was therefore entitled to escalate the case. We cannot investigate Mrs X’s concerns about the Council’s escalation as she has been to the TEC. The restriction at Paragraph 4 therefore applies.
13. While we could investigate the Council’s reissue of the PCN it would not be a good use of our resources to do so. The TEC’s decision cancelled the Council’s previous action but did not prevent the Council from reissuing the PCN. I note the Council told Mrs X it was an error to reissue the PCN but even if we could say this was fault it did not cause her significant injustice. The Council’s cancellation of the PCN therefore provides a suitable remedy and we would not recommend anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaints about the PCN and the Council’s escalation of the case. This is because Mrs X has used the alternative remedies available to her to challenge these actions. We will not investigate whether the Council was at fault for reissuing the PCN because it has now cancelled it and this provides a suitable remedy for Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman