London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (25 012 072)

Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 08 Jan 2026

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s representations against a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because it would have been reasonable to expect Miss X to wait to hear from the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court and then make a late witness statement or statutory declaration.

The complaint

  1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). She says it lied about the appeal process.
  2. Miss X also said the PCN was issued after the 14-day deadline to pay it at the discounted rate.
  3. She says the PCN went up to £240, and she borrowed money to pay it. Miss X would like a partial refund.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. 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)
  3. 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

  1. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of a PCN. She says the PCN arrived late and the Council made false statements about the appeal process.
  2. However, the Council advised Miss X to wait for an Order of Recovery from the TEC, after which she could make a statutory declaration.
  3. I note that Miss X chose to pay the PCN instead.
  4. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable to expect her to wait to hear from the TEC and then submit a statutory declaration.
  5. The TEC has the power to consider the matters Miss X complains of. It can also ask the Council to cancel a PCN or reset it the Notice to Owner stage.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable to expect her to make a statutory declaration to the TEC and I have seen no reason why we should investigate instead.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings