Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to have made representations to the Council and appealed to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

The complaint

1. The Council issued Mrs X a penalty charge notice (PCN) for a parking contravention in September 2024. Mrs X complains she did not receive the original PCN and tried to challenge it with the Council but the Council did not respond. The Council escalated the case and Mrs X had to pay it at an increased rate including Enforcement agent fees.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is part of Northampton County Court. It considers applications from local authorities to pursue payment of unpaid PCNs and from motorists to challenge local authorities’ pursuit of unpaid PCNs.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for parking contraventions and handling appeals against them.
11. In this case, the Council placed the original PCN on Mrs X’s car windscreen. Because she did not pay or challenge it, the Council sent her a ‘notice to owner’ which set out her right to make representations and appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Mrs X did not appeal or pay the PCN at this stage and says she did not receive the original PCN.
12. Once the appeal period had ended, the Council issued a ‘charge certificate’. This explained the amount of the penalty charge had increased and that Mrs X was no longer able to appeal. The Council told her that if she did not pay it may register the unpaid PCN with the TEC and that Mrs X may make her own application to the TEC to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case.
13. In response to the charge certificate Mrs X emailed the Council disputing the PCN and received an automated response acknowledging her email. This said: “IMPORTANT: We will not accept incorrectly submitted correspondence via this link that is in response to 1) a Charge Certificate issued…”
14. Mrs X remains unhappy the Council did not respond to her challenge and instead escalated the case further, but its actions were in accordance with the statutory process and do not amount to fault. Had Mrs X wished to challenge the PCN she should have done so in response to the notice to owner. If the Council had rejected her representations it would then have been reasonable for her to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. There is no requirement for the Council to accept representations once it has issued a charge certificate and the automated acknowledgement clearly explained that it would not respond.
15. Although Mrs X is no longer able to appeal against the PCN she may be able to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement. There are limited grounds for this but they cover any situation where the motorist’s right of appeal has been affected as a result of claimed failures in the process. If Mrs X did not receive the notice to owner, or believes she made representations within the period allowed by law but did not get a response, it would be reasonable for her to use this process.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and if Mrs X had wished to challenge the PCN it would have been reasonable for her to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. If Mrs X claims any flaws in the process which affected her right of appeal it would be reasonable for her to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman