Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice as Mrs X could have made an appeal to the independent tribunal and we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to show any compassion or sympathy about her difficult personal circumstances in its handling of a parking penalty charge notice it issued to her. Mrs X says the Council put her through emotional trauma and she seeks a compensation payment in recognition of this.

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 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X says the Council failed to properly take account of her explanation of why she had parked at the location where she had been issued with a PCN. Mrs X explained her difficult personal circumstances to the Council and says that it caused her trauma by continuing to enforce the PCN.
7. The Council wrote to Mrs X in June 2025 explaining how it had considered her representations against the PCN, with reference to the judicial process it must follow, in enforcing PCNs. It confirmed though that it had decided to cancel the PCN after it had made its own enquiries in respect of Mrs X’s circumstances.
8. I recognise Mrs X remains unhappy as she feels the Council did not act with compassion and caused her trauma. However, there is an appeal procedure provided in law which Mrs X could have used once the Council rejected her appeals against the PCN. Mrs X had the right to appeal to an independent adjudicator at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT), stating her mitigating circumstances, and the adjudicator would have decided whether the Council ought to reconsider its decision to issue the PCN.
9. We are not another level of appeal and cannot make the decisions of the Tribunal.
10. While I recognise Mrs X’s difficult circumstances, I consider it was still reasonable to expect her to have followed the appeal procedure available in law, and as such, we will not investigate this complaint.
11. I understand Mrs X is unhappy that this matter remained unresolved for several months, but again, Mrs X had the right to appeal the PCN to the Tribunal, at an earlier stage, to obtain an expert opinion on the matter.
12. This is not a complaint, from our perspective, that would warrant a financial remedy, as a remedy was provided in law, that is, the appeal right to the TPT.
13. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to have appealed the PCN to the TPT.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman