London Borough of Havering (25 011 799)
Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 19 Nov 2025
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Miss Z’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). There is not enough evidence of fault, and Miss Z had a formal right of appeal initially to the Council and to the London Tribunals which it was reasonable for her to use.
The complaint
- Miss Z complains the Council incorrectly issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and increased the charge without responding to her appeal. She says paying the increased charge would cause her financial difficulties. She wants the Council to reduce the charge to the original amount and consider her appeal.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
- 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)
- London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
- 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))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The PCN process
- Councils must follow a set procedure when pursuing PCNs for alleged parking contraventions and handling appeals against them. When a council issues a PCN, the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal. Appeals at this stage are known as ‘informal challenges’.
- If the motorist makes an informal challenge to a PCN and the council decides not to accept it, it will write to the motorist and explain why. If the motorist accepts the council’s reasons, they may pay the PCN. If not, they may wait for a ‘notice to owner’. This provides another opportunity for the vehicle owner to pay the charge or make ‘formal representations’ against the PCN. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations, the motorist may appeal to London Tribunals.
Miss Z’s case
- Miss Z says she submitted an appeal to the Council online on the same day she received a PCN. She says the Council did not respond and then issued a notice to owner, charging the full amount for the PCN. She complained she could find no guidance supporting that the alleged parking contravention was prohibited, and that the Council had increased the charge without responding to her appeal.
- In its responses to Miss Z, the Council said it emailed her to reject her informal challenge a month after she submitted it. The Council said the response signposted Miss Z to the statutory appeals process, including the option to make formal representations when she received a notice to owner.
- We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of Miss Z’s PCN. Although Miss Z says she did not receive a response to her informal challenge, it appears the Council did send this. It is therefore reasonable to expect Miss Z to have made formal representations against the PCN and, if necessary, appeal to the London Tribunals, if she wanted to do so.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Miss Z’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault, and it was reasonable for Miss Z to make formal representations against the PCN and if necessary to London Tribunals, if she wanted to do so.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman