Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly notify her of temporary parking restrictions, unlawfully towed her vehicle, and mishandled her subsequent complaints. We find no fault in the Council’s decision to introduce and enforce the Temporary Traffic Regulation Order, issue a Penalty Charge Notice, or require payment before an appeal could be made. However, we find fault in the Council’s handling of Ms X’s correspondence and complaints, including mishandled letters, delayed responses, and a failure to provide key information in a timely way. These faults caused Ms X distress, uncertainty, and avoidable time and trouble in pursuing the matter. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to notify her about temporary parking restrictions on her street. She says the Council then unlawfully towed her car, ignored five formal complaints she submitted, and required her to pay the removal fees and Penalty Charge Notice before she was allowed to appeal.
2. Ms X says the loss of access to her car financially impacted her as she has had to pay for public transport, affected her mental health, and restricted her ability to leave her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Traffic regulation Order

7. A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) or Traffic Management Order (TMO) are legal documents, which create a local traffic rule in line with the Road Traffic Regulation Act (1984). These rules could include reducing the speed vehicles can travel and where they can park.
8. The Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (‘the Regulations’) sets out the procedure for introducing a TRO or TMO.

Temporary traffic Regulation Orders

9. A Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) may place temporary restrictions on a road such as a closure, partial closure or the use of traffic lights to allow road works. Applications for a TTRO are made to the Council.

The Council’s position on Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders (TTROs)

10. The Council requires those carrying out the works to give affected residents as much notice as possible.
11. Copies of the Public Notice should be displayed at least 72 hours before a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order comes into force. However, this may not be possible where works are urgent.

Fines for breaking parking rules

12. If a motorist breaks parking rules, they might receive a fine. This fine is called a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).

The Council’s process for releasing towed vehicles

13. The Council’s website explains the charges that must be paid to secure the release of a vehicle that has been towed.
14. If a vehicle is removed and the owner believes this was done incorrectly, they can challenge both the PCN and the removal.
15. A challenge can only be made after the vehicle has been released and the relevant charges have been paid.
16. Any challenge must be submitted within 28 days of collecting the vehicle.
17. If someone remains dissatisfied with the Council’s decision, they can then take the matter to the London Tribunal for its consideration.

What happened

18. In September 2024, the Council placed advance warning signs on the street where Ms X lives to notify motorists of a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO). The signs set out the dates and times of the restrictions, the reason for the TTRO, and information about vehicle removal.
19. Four days later, the TTRO came into force. Ms X’s vehicle was parked in the restricted area when enforcement began. The Council issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and removed the vehicle.
20. In October 2024, the Council wrote to Ms X explaining her vehicle had been removed for contravening parking restrictions and that she would need to pay the PCN, removal fee, and storage charges to secure its release.
21. Later that month, Ms X wrote to the Council asking for her vehicle to be released, which she believed had been removed in error. She said she had been away from home since late August and could not contact the Council by email as the PCN was attached to the vehicle. She sent the letter by recorded delivery.
22. After receiving no response, Ms X wrote again around two weeks later to complain. She said she held a valid parking permit, was unaware of any temporary restrictions, and had received no reply to her earlier letter. She asked for her vehicle to be returned.
23. In November, the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint by issuing a rejection letter. It said a PCN had been issued and the vehicle removed in September because it was parked where restrictions were in force. The Council said it had considered Ms X’s representations but would not cancel the PCN or refund removal fees. It stated motorists are responsible for checking parking restrictions before leaving a vehicle unattended and said Ms X had not provided evidence to show she was away before the restrictions began.
24. Ms X escalated her complaint. She said her vehicle had been parked legally, residents were not adequately notified of the TTRO, and being without her vehicle had caused her inconvenience. She sought compensation and the return of her vehicle.
25. In February 2025, Ms X submitted a further complaint via the Council’s online complaints system, saying the removal was unlawful and the Council had failed to deal with the matter properly. Ms X detailed the hardship being without her vehicle had caused and requested the vehicle be returned and payment of compensation.
26. In April, the Council responded to the online complaint. It apologised for the delay and said the TTRO was in place to allow road works, signage had been clearly displayed, and the vehicle was removed because it was parked in contravention. It said representations can only be made after a vehicle has been collected and within 28 days. The Council acknowledged it should not have issued a Notice of Rejection in November and should instead have advised Ms X to collect the vehicle before making representations. It said it had not received any complaints before March 2025. The Council agreed to release the vehicle free of charge but declined to pay compensation.
27. Ms X escalated her complaint again. She said she had complained earlier than March 2025, had not been directly notified of the TTRO, and had no opportunity to comply with the restrictions. She said the Council’s request for evidence that she was away was irrelevant. Ms X provided details of costs she had incurred while her vehicle was held, including ongoing vehicle costs, transport expenses, and concerns about the condition of the vehicle after prolonged storage and asked for these to be reimbursed.
28. In May, the Council issued its stage two complaint response. It acknowledged that Ms X’s first October letter had been scanned incorrectly and not responded to by an officer. It said that, had this been dealt with correctly, Ms X would have been advised to collect the vehicle before making representations. The Council also acknowledged the Ms X’s November correspondence had been incorrectly handled and that escalated complaint from November had not been sent to the correct team. It said no evidence had been provided to show Ms X was away when the TTRO was enforced. The Council confirmed it would release the vehicle free of charge once Ms X provided the required documents, but it would not pay compensation.
29. In June, the Council reiterated its May response and Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
30. In response to my enquiries the Council said it had since reminded staff handling post of the correct procedures for managing different types of correspondence. The Council also confirmed it first provided Ms X with a copy of the PCN in April 2025, in response to a data request, and that delays in complaint handling were due to inboxes not being monitored during staff absence.

My findings

31. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

TTRO notification and enforcement action

32. The Council introduced a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) to facilitate work on the road. It placed advance warning signage on the street where Ms X lives before the restrictions came into force. The signage set out the dates and times of the restrictions and warned motorists that vehicles parked in contravention could be removed.
33. In line with the Council’s own policy on advertising TTRO’s, residents were provided with at least 72 hours’ notice of the restrictions.
34. Ms X’s vehicle was parked in the restricted area when the TTRO was enforced. The Council was therefore entitled to issue a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and remove the vehicle.

Requirement to pay before being provided with appeal right

35. The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 requires motorists to pay the PCN and removal charges before you are entitled to make representations against the PCN and removal. The Council’s published process reflects this requirement.
36. Although Ms X found this process distressing and difficult, the Council was not at fault for requiring payment before representations could be considered.

Handling of correspondence and complaints

37. The Council mishandled all three pieces of correspondence Ms X sent in 2024 in relation to the removal of her vehicle. This was fault.
38. Ms X was not aware of the full reason why her vehicle had been towed, nor had she seen a copy of the PCN until April 2025, seven months later after the vehicle was towed. This was fault.
39. The Council’s responses to her 2025 complaint at stage one and stage two in 2025 were also delayed, further prolonging resolution of the matter. This was fault.
40. The Council’s poor handling of Ms X’s correspondence and complaints caused her significant distress, uncertainty, and avoidable time and trouble pursuing the matter.

Release of the vehicle

41. In April, the Council agreed to release Ms X’s vehicle free of charge. By this point, the vehicle had been stored for several months. It is understandable that Ms X was concerned about its condition. However, the Council had explained in October 2024 that she needed to pay the release charges before making representations. Although Ms X did not have all the relevant information at that time, it was reasonable to expect her to follow the statutory process.

Conclusion

42. The Council was not at fault in introducing and enforcing the TTRO, issuing the PCN, requiring payment before representations could be made, or in relation to the length of time the vehicle remained in storage.
43. However, the Council was at fault in its handling of Ms X’s correspondence and complaints, including mishandled letters, procedural errors, and avoidable delays. These faults caused Ms X distress, uncertainty, and avoidable time and trouble.

Back to top

Action

44. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology; and
• pay Ms X £400 to recognise the uncertainty, distress and time and trouble caused by the poor handling of her correspondence and complaints.
45. I have not recommended any action for the Council to take to improve its services. This is because it has already reminded relevant staff how to correctly handle postal correspondence and complaints.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

47. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman