Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council issuing him several lots of Penalty Charge Notices. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and a further investigation would not achieve anything more.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s enforcement action in relation to several lots of Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) it issued to him whilst he was homeless. Mr X said he did not receive the majority of the PCNs as he had no fixed address. The Council increased the charges of each PCN as they remained unpaid. Mr X said it caused him distress. He wants the Council to stop all enforcement action and either cancel all the charges or reduce them to a discounted rate. He also wants the Council to apologise to him, provide him with a financial remedy and make service improvements to prevent a recurrence of fault.

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 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Between February and April 2024, the Council issued several lots of PCNs to Mr X. The Council said it notified Mr X of the charges via post and it also affixed the notices to his vehicle. As Mr X had not paid the fee of any of the PCNs, the Council increased the fees.
6. In April 2025, Mr X complained to the Council. He now owed a debt of approximately £1,900 to the Council due to the unpaid PCNs. Mr X said:
• he was not aware of all the PCNs the Council had issued to him;
• he no longer had access to the vehicle in question;
• the Council had written to his former address;
• he was homeless at the time the Council had issued the PCNs and the Council was aware of his situation; and
• the Council had not given him a fair opportunity to respond to the PCNs.
7. In August 2025, the Council’s Parking Services Team wrote to Mr X. It said it had relied on information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to obtain Mr X’s address and used this address to issue its correspondence in relation to the PCNs. The Council informed Mr X it was the responsibility of the driving license owner to update their address should they have moved. However, the Council liaised with its Revenue Team and found Mr X had not lived at the address since 2023. As a goodwill gesture, the Council removed the additional fees Mr X owed. It told Mr X it had reduced the outstanding charges to £700 which was the total of the original PCNs.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council had relied on information from the DVLA to issue its PCNs via post. It was not aware Mr X had moved from that property as Mr X had not notified the DVLA when he moved address.
9. Furthermore, the Council already offered to reduce the outstanding charges as a goodwill gesture. We would not be able to achieve anything more with a further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and a further investigation would not achieve anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman