Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a series of Penalty Charge Notices because it is reasonable for Mr Y to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal about the matter, who are better placed to deal with the complaint and because the issues could reasonably be mentioned and raised as part of those legal proceedings to consider Mr Y’s appeal.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council:
• Failed to properly issue a parking permit to him in November 2023;
• Falsely claimed the information including reference numbers that Mr Y provided and the payment he said it had taken were false and it had no record of these; and
• Continued to pursue the PCNs after Mr Y had been to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
2. Mr Y says this has resulted in continued contact from the Council, which has made him feel harassed and he has had to pay over £400 to enforcement agents which he does not believe he owed.

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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (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. 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)
6. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
7. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. In November 2023, Mr Y applied for a parking permit from the Council, for which he says payment was taken and the application confirmed. Mr Y then received a series of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) from the Council between November 2023 and January 2024. Mr Y made representations to the Council against the PCNs, saying he had a parking permit, but the Council rejected them.
10. Mr Y appealed the PCNs to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT). Mr Y says he put a list of all the PCNs in his appeal. The TPT upheld Mr Y’s appeal, on the basis that the Council had not correctly issued the Notice to Owner (NtO).
11. Mr Y says this decision applies to all the PCNs, but the Council has referred to the Tribunal’s decision listing only one PCN reference. The decision, which Mr Y has provided the detail of to us, only refers to “the PCN”. However, the Council then reissued all the PCNs previously issued, rather than only the single PCN the Council says was included in the Tribunal’s decision. Consequently, there is currently a disagreement over whether the Tribunal’s decision refers to one or all the PCNs Mr Y received and which he says he included in his appeal documents.
12. Since this time, the Council has cancelled all the PCNs, apart from two. One of these PCNs remains unpaid by Mr Y and the other has been paid by Mr Y after he was visited by enforcement agents, costing Mr Y over £400. Mr Y says he did not make representations or appeal against these PCNs as they were sent to his previous address and says he became aware of them after he was contacted by enforcement agents. Mr Y complained to the Council, who declined his complaint. He then approached us in August 2025.

Analysis

13. 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’. In this case, Mr Y’s injustice at this stage is the payment and associated enforcement agent fees he has made, the potential he will be pursued again for a further outstanding PCN and the emotional impact and inconvenience he has experienced because of the alleged initial fault by the Council relating to the parking permit.
14. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) and the TPT are better placed to deal with the issues Mr Y has raised about the outstanding PCN and the reimbursement of the payment for the other PCN of approximately £400. This is because Mr Y, having paid an enforcement agent under duress, can still approach the TEC and ask for his right to appeal to be reinstated for both PCNs using a late witness statement to the TEC. If successful, he can then approach the TPT to appeal the PCNs. The TEC also has the power to order the Council refunds Mr Y the amount paid, including enforcement agent costs. Mr Y can then raise the issue of whether the PCNs should have been issued and therefore whether the PCNs are valid or not with the TPT.
15. The TEC and the TPT have been set up as a free way to deal with disputes over PCNs and their enforcement. As explained in paragraph 14, they have powers to act to help MR Y to potentially regain his appeal rights and recover the money he has already paid so they are better placed than us to consider this complaint. As both the TEC and TPT are free and can make reasonable adjustments if needed, we consider it reasonable to expect Mr Y to use his right to appeal.
16. Mr Y believes the Council’s failure to issue him with the parking permit he applied and paid for has led to him receiving the PCNs, which he considers are invalid. This is something he may wish to raise in his appeals to the TEC and TPT. Within his appeal to the TEC and the TPT, it is likely Mr Y will need to explain to why he believes he had a valid parking permit and the PCNs are therefore invalid. It follows that the Mr Y’s complaint about the alleged initial failure to issue a parking permit and the Council’s subsequent denial of the payment and confirmation, could reasonably be mentioned as part of legal proceedings. As any comment from us on this issue would risk stepping into the TEC and TPT’s jurisdiction as the issues could reasonably be mentioned as part of the legal proceedings about the PCNs, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is reasonable for Mr Y to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal about the matter, who are better placed to deal with the complaint and because the issues could reasonably be mentioned and raised as part of those legal proceedings to consider Mr Y’s appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman