Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling to justify our involvement. It would also be reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s Enforcement Agent has pursued him for charges on a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) he believes he has already paid. He wants the Council to repay the extra charges he has paid to the Enforcement Agent.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code

My Assessment

8. The law outlines a process for motorists to challenge a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for a moving traffic offence. Motorists must submit representations to the Local Authority and, if necessary, appeal to the London Traffic Tribunal.
9. The Council explained Mr X’s vehicle committed two separate contraventions at the same location, one in April 2024 and another in May 2024. The Council sent all statutory notices to the registered vehicle keeper’s address, and none were returned as undelivered.
10. The Council also explained that while Mr X had paid off the May PCN in August 2024, he had not made payment for the April PCN.
11. Because Mr X did not pay the April PCN, the Council instructed enforcement agents to recover the debt. By that time, Mr X had moved house, so the enforcement agency used tracing methods to locate his current address after failing to make initial contact. This attracted further charges which Mr X has since paid.
12. The Council has refused to issue a refund for the enforcement agent charges because both contraventions occurred. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling to justify our involvement. If Mr X disagreed with either of the PCNs issued, he had the right to challenge these through the Council’s internal process and then the London Traffic Tribunal.

Back to top

Final Decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we found no evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the matter. Additionally, Mr X could reasonably have used his right of appeal.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman