Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about several penalty charge notices. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mx Z to use their right of appeal to a tribunal. Also, the Council cancelled one of the PCNs following an appeal by Mx Z. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating this PCN.

The complaint

1. Mx Z complains that, over two months, the Council sent five penalty charge notices (PCNs) despite Mx Z having the relevant permits to park. Mx Z complained to the Council about this, but says the Council refused to respond. Mx Z says the Council’s action caused significant stress, distress and financial stress, causing Mx Z to rely on food banks.
2. Mx Z has since received a further PCN from the Council. But, Mx Z does not feel able to continue challenging the PCNs further given the stress this causes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mx Z is unhappy with the volume of PCNs received over a two-month period in 2025. Mx Z complains the Council has since sent a further PCN.
10. Every PCN carries a right of appeal and the appeal right in this case is to London Tribunals. It is not our role to determine the validity of the PCNs. We could not therefore say the Council was at fault for issuing the PCNs and it is not for us to say it should allow permit holders to park in the specific parking bays where Mx Z parked their vehicle. It is reasonable to expect Mx Z to challenge these PCNs first by making representations to the Council and, if needed, put in an appeal to London Tribunals. These organisations are best placed to consider the underlying matters complained of.
11. I understand Mx Z finds the process of challenging PCNs stressful and has explained they are disabled. If Mx Z thinks they are experiencing any barriers to accessing the Council or London Tribunals appeals processes based on a disability, it is open to Mx Z to request these organisations consider making reasonable adjustments. The organisations will reach their own decision on whether the adjustments can be made.
12. I have not seen any reasons to say it is unreasonable to expect Mx Z to follow the above process for challenging the PCNs. So, we will not investigate this complaint.
13. Following an appeal by Mx Z to the Council about one of the PCNs, the Council decided to cancel it due to a lack of signage (meaning it accepted one of Mx Z’s reasons for challenging the PCN). So far as this PCN is concerned, there is nothing further an investigation could add. The underlying injustice and remedy sought (that the Council should cancel the PCN) has already been resolved through the Council’s appeals process. We will not investigate this PCN because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
14. Mx Z complains about the Council’s complaints handling, including its refusal to consider the series of PCNs under its complaints process. But, there is not enough evidence of significant injustice to Mx Z to justify investigating the Council’s complaint handling alone, given we are not investigating the underlying substantive issues. So, we will not investigate this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint about several penalty charge notices. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mx Z to use their right of appeal to a tribunal. Also, the Council cancelled one of the PCNs following Mx Z’s appeal. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating this PCN.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman