Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice he received because he could have followed the statutory process and appealed to the tribunal. There is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with concerns raised about the actions of the enforcement agents, and the police are better placed to consider Mr X’s allegations of assault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to him as he was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention. He also complains that the enforcement agents acted unreasonably when recovering the debt and assaulted him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
4. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. In August 2024, the Council issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to Mr X for a moving traffic contravention. As the registered keeper, Mr X was legally responsible for the charge.
8. Mr X submitted a challenge against the PCN. The Council issued a Notice of Rejection in September 2024, explaining why the PCN would not be cancelled.
9. As the Council did not receive either payment or a formal appeal, it issued a Charge Certificate in October 2024.
10. When the penalty remained unpaid, the Council registered the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre and issued an Order for Recovery in December 2024.
11. A Warrant of Control was authorised by the court in January 2025, and enforcement agents were instructed to recover the outstanding debt.
12. Mr X complained that enforcement action should not have been taken because a Blue Badge was displayed in the vehicle. The Council responded that the vehicle was not registered as a mobility vehicle, so enforcement action was lawful.
13. The Council reviewed body-worn camera footage and found no evidence that the enforcement agents failed to follow correct procedures.
14. I will not investigate this complaint further because Mr X had the opportunity to appeal the PCN through the statutory process but did not do so. It was reasonable for him to use this right of appeal.
15. There is also not enough evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s concerns about the actions of the enforcement agents. The police are better placed to deal with Mr X’s allegations of assault.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because Mr X could have appealed to the tribunal, also there is not enough evidence of fault to justify further investigation and the police are better placed to deal with Mr X’s allegations of assault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman