Summary: My summary of this complaint is Mr E complained the Council was refusing to issue refunds to recipients of Penalty Charge Notices at the dropped kerb location where he received a Notice. We uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to write to all the people it issued a Penalty Charge Notice to (where it has contact details for them). This provides a suitable remedy to others affected by the fault.

The complaint

1. My summary of this complaint is Mr E complained the Council was refusing to issue refunds to recipients of Penalty Charge Notices at the dropped kerb location where he received a Penalty Charge Notice. This is despite the Council’s acceptance it had no lawful grounds for issuing them in that location. And that, since then, it has instructed its enforcement officers to stop issuing Penalty Charge Notices at the location.
2. Mr E asks the Council to cancel the Penalty Charge Notices it issued at the location between 2022 and June 2025.

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’. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We have the power to make recommendations to remedy the injustice experienced by complainants and members of the public affected by fault we identify. (Local Government Act 1974 s 31(2B))
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr E and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr E 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

Legal and administrative background

8. If a motorist breaks parking rules, they might receive a fine. This fine is called a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
9. The motorist has 28 days to pay the fine or appeal. This is called an ‘informal challenge’. The fine is usually halved if it is paid within 14 days or within 21 days if the notice was sent by post.
10. If the authority rejects an ‘informal challenge’, it will write and say why. If the motorist accepts what the authority says, they can pay the fine. If they do not accept what it says, they should wait for the authority to send them a letter and form called a ‘notice to owner’. They can then make 'representations’ against the PCN.
11. The authority has 56 days to reply to representations. If it does not reply within that time, it must cancel the fine.
12. If the authority rejects a formal appeal, the motorist can appeal to an independent tribunal called the London Tribunals. 
13. A dropped kerb or vehicle crossover is an area of lowered pavement and kerbstones. A council can only enforce dropped kerb restrictions where the kerb has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway to assist:
• pedestrians crossing the carriageway;
• cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway; or
• vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge. (Traffic Management Act 2004 Section 86(1)(a) .

What happened

14. The Council issued Mr E a PCN for parking over a dropped kerb, which he challenged. The Council cancelled the PCN due to a location error.
15. Mr E later made a Freedom of Information request to the Council. Its response advised:
• the place where it had issued Mr E’s PCN was a historic dropped kerb which existed before flats were built. It no longer served a purpose and should have been removed as a condition of planning;
• of the number of other PCNs it had issued at the same location.
16. Mr E complained the Council should have written to other recipients of PCNs at the same location. It should also have told its enforcement agents to stop issuing PCNs at the location.
17. The Council’s response:
• confirmed it had stopped enforcing at the location;
• apologised;
• noted the appeals process allowed PCN recipients to challenge the process. And it would consider refund requests for PCNs it had issued if it was contacted by the registered keeper of a vehicle.
18. Mr E complained to the Ombudsman. We decided to investigate as there was a possibility there might be others affected by fault by the Council (see paragraph 4). And, contrary to the Council’s view, we noted people sometimes would not appeal, as they might lose a discount for early payment (see paragraph 9), or might think the fine was correctly issued.
19. The Council’s response to my enquiries advised:
• it had issued 13 PCNs at the location in 2025 and one in an earlier year;
• of those PCNs, it had received six informal challenges;
• it had rejected each of the informal challenges;
• where it had contact details, it would be writing to people who had paid a PCN about refunds.
20. The Council said:
• it accepted it might have had opportunities, in response to one of the informal challenges, to identify enforcement at the location was not appropriate. But it had changed its software system so could no longer check the full details of the challenges;
• its officers issued the PCNs on the basis the dropped kerb might have assisted pedestrians or cyclists. But it was only on more detailed consideration that it accepted that was not the reason why the kerb had been lowered;
• the reason why it was not appropriate to enforce penalties at this location was “somewhat arcane” and not likely to arise often;
• “…we can confirm that clear instructions have been issued to Civil Enforcement Officers not to issue penalties ‘Where a dropped kerb was clearly installed to allow access to vehicles, but where that access has been stopped, no penalty should be issued’ and while there are no recent incidents, Civil Enforcement Officers and those answering challenges have since received further reminders regarding dropped kerb enforcement and its nuances, as well as instruction specific to this site. We are therefore confident of avoiding similar incidents in future.”

Analysis

21. The Council has now agreed to contact others affected by its fault about a refund. That is a suitable remedy for any injustice to those affected.
22. The Council has also explained how it has advised its Officers to act about similar situations in the future.

Back to top

Decision

23. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice, so no further action is needed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman