Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council wrongly issuing him a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and pursuing him for outstanding debt. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to submit his case to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. We also cannot investigate his complaint as the relative debt is registered with the court and so it is not in our jurisdiction to do so.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council unfairly issued him a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and then pursued him for the outstanding debt via enforcement action without giving him the option to formally challenge it. He said it caused him distress. He wants the Council to cancel the PCN, accept it acted with fault and provide him with a financial remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In early 2025, Mr X said he had parked his vehicle near a hospital he was visiting nearby. Mr X said he has a Blue Badge and displayed it on his parked vehicle at the time however, the Council issued him a PCN. Mr X did not pay the charge. As a result, the Council registered the case with the Traffic Enforcement Centre at the county court. Mr X’s case was then passed on to an enforcement agency who had a warrant from the court to recover the fee and any additional charges applied. The Enforcement Agency sent Mr X correspondence and visited him at his property.
9. Later, Mr X complained to the Council as he said:
• the Council had wrongly issued him a PCN as he had displayed his Blue Badge at the time of parking his vehicle;
• he had attempted to pay the PCN earlier however had not been able to speak with the Council via telephone; and
• the Council had not given him the opportunity to appeal the PCN.
10. The Council responded to Mr X and said:
• Mr X had parked his vehicle in a parking permit bay without a valid permit. His Blue Badge would not have been considered as a parking permit to park in that specific area;
• it had no evidence of Mr X attempting to pay the initial charge of the PCN;
• it had written to Mr X on several occasions notifying him of the PCN. It also said it had made Mr X aware of how he could appeal the PCN in writing or via a portal on its website; and
• it provided Mr X with options to resolve the matter which included either paying the PCN or submitting an out-of-time witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.
11. It is not for us to conclude whether the PCN the Council issued to Mr X was valid. We also do not have the power to revoke it. It would be reasonable for Mr X to submit an out-of-time witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. Its process will stop any enforcement action against Mr X whilst it makes a decision on Mr X’s case. If the Traffic Enforcement Centre’s decision is successful for Mr X, it may take the PCN back to the earlier stage, reducing the amount of charge Mr X owes. If it refuses his case, Mr X can ask for a review of its decision. The process exists specifically for such cases.
12. In any case, we cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint as the PCN issued to him has been registered as a debt with the court and therefore paragraph four applies in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as it would be reasonable for him to submit his case to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. We also cannot investigate his complaint as the relative debt is registered with the court and so it is not in our jurisdiction to do so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman