Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council mishandling the correspondence relating to a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) it issued, meaning Mr Y was unable to pay the reduced amount and eventually had to pay a penalty of £110, despite prior agreement that the penalty would be reduced to £55 only.
2. Mr Y says this caused him upset and he feels the PCN should not have been issued anyway.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 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)
5. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued the PCN to Mr Y’s vehicle. Mr Y challenged the PCN in April 2025 and the Council rejected his representations to it in a letter dated 1 May. However, Mr Y did not receive this response until the end of May. The Notice to Owner was then issued by the Council at the start of June but was not received by Mr Y until the end of July. Mr Y says this meant he was unable to respond within the statutory timeframe, during which he may have been able to pay the PCN at a discounted rate, totalling £55.
8. Mr Y complained about this, and the Council offered as a goodwill gesture to allow Mr Y to pay the penalty at a discounted rate of £55 but said this offer would only last for five days, following which the penalty would increase to the standard rate of £110. While Mr Y accepted this offer, he did not make the payment until seven days in total had passed, which meant the amount had then increased to £110, the standard amount. Mr Y then approached us.
9. While Mr Y is dissatisfied with the time it took for him to receive postal correspondence, councils are required by law to send certain PCN correspondence by post and once issued, it is deemed as having been served from the date of the letter being sent. While there may have been delays in Mr Y receiving the correspondence, we would not hold the Council at fault for this as it would be an issue with the postal service, rather than the Council. As there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, we will not investigate this complaint.
10. Further, such issues can be considered by the London Tribunals if necessary, who have the power to put Mr Y back to the position he would have been in without such delays. We would consider it reasonable for Mr Y to use such a right of appeal if he felt his ability to make representations had been compromised as a result of the postal delays. We will not investigate this complaint.
11. The Council has shown that Mr Y did not make a payment to the Council for the reduced amount offered as a gesture of goodwill within the five day period offered, but did accept it in that time. As Mr Y was able to accept the offer, he was aware of it. As Mr Y did not make payment, despite accepting the offer, the Council then reverted to the standard penalty of £110. As payment was not made, we would not find it at fault for increasing the penalty from the reduced rate. As there is not enough evidence of fault, we will not investigate.
12. Mr Y has also told us that he is seeking a cancellation of the PCN, despite him having paid it. He has now paid the penalty, despite his disagreement with it and the issues he says he experienced, instead of using his right to appeal it to the London Tribunals. If Mr Y has felt the penalty should not have been charged, it is for him as the driver and recipient of the PCN to challenge this.
13. In deciding not to appeal and paying the penalty, Mr Y has legally accepted his liability for the penalty and the validity of the PCN itself. As he has accepted liability for the PCN and the amount of £110 for the penalty, it is unlikely we would now find fault in the Council’s enforcement of the PCN. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman