Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because the Council has since cancelled it, and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council lacked empathy and professionalism by refusing to cancel his Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) after a London Tribunal’s Parking Adjudicator recommended it exercise discretion. Mr X says the Council should cancel the PCN because it failed to tell him within 35 days of the Parking Adjudicator’s decision that it did not accept the recommendation.

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. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s complaint responses. He complains they did not address points he made about its actions being in breach of traffic enforcement regulations. He says the Council failed to tell him, within 35 days of a Parking Adjudicator’s decision, that it did not accept the Adjudicator’s recommendation to exercise discretion and cancel the PCN. Mr X says, in these circumstances when 35 days have passed, the Council should cancel the PCN.
7. In mid-April 2025, the Council replied to Mr X’s complaint to say that it did not accept the Adjudicator’s recommendation from early March. It told him this was because it was satisfied Mr X had not correctly displayed a blue badge at the time of the contravention.
8. Mr X complained to the Council that its refusal decision was made outside the 35 day statutory timeframe.
9. In June, the Council cancelled the PCN because its decision to reject the Adjudicator’s decision was late. It apologised to Mr X and acknowledged the distress caused to him. The action taken by the Council within two months of the refusal decision is broadly in line with what we would have been likely to recommend. Further investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. For these reasons, we will not investigate.
10. It is not proportionate for us to consider Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s complaint handling alone when we are not investigating the substantive part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because the Council has since cancelled it, and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman