Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled penalty charges notices issued to his partner, who is the registered keeper of the vehicle he drives. The Council was at fault for failing to consider Mr X’s representations on behalf of Ms Y, and for failing to consider exercising discretion to review his later representations before instructing enforcement agents. The Council should apologise and provide Mr X a symbolic financial remedy in recognition of the impact this failing had on him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the way the Council handled penalty charges notices issued to his partner, Ms Y, who is the registered keeper of the vehicle he drives.
2. Mr X said the Council did not act properly once it was aware of his disability and vulnerability and failed to make reasonable adjustments so he could access the appeals process. This caused Mr X distress, mental-health deterioration and suicidal ideation. He said the Council should not have instructed enforcement agents due to his vulnerability, and their aggressive tactics caused further distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Fines for breaking parking rules

8. If a motorist breaks parking rules, they may receive a fine from the Council. This fine is called a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
9. The motorist has 28 days to pay the fine or appeal. This is called an ‘informal challenge’. The Council will usually halve the fine if the motorist pays within 14 days, or within 21 days if the Council sent the notice by post.
10. If the Council rejects an ‘informal challenge’, it will write and say why. If the motorist accepts what the Council says, they can pay the fine. If they do not accept what it says, they should wait for the Council to send them a letter and form called a ‘notice to owner’. They can then make 'representations’ against the PCN.
11. If the Council rejects a formal appeal, the motorist can appeal to an independent tribunal called the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, or the London Tribunals for parking fines issued in London. 

Government guidance on civil enforcement and parking contraventions

12. Councils should offer motorists flexible and efficient ways to contact them, including e-mail and telephone. They should ensure there is an adequate audit trail to rebut any accusations of unfairness.
13. The penalty charge is usually payable by the owner of the vehicle unless the vehicle was hired at the time of the contravention. This expression is defined by the TMA, section 92 as follows: “owner”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in the case of a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 is presumed (unless the contrary is proved) to be the person in whose name the vehicle is registered.
14. Councils have a discretionary power to cancel a PCN at any point throughout the process. They can do this even when an undoubted contravention has occurred if the Council deems it to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
15. Councils should remember enforcement agents are acting on their behalf and that ultimately they are responsible and accountable for the behaviour of the enforcement agents acting on their behalf.
16. Reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities
    The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
17. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
18. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

What happened

19. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
20. Mr X has a residents parking permit so he can park the vehicle he drives in a car park near his home. At the relevant time, it was a physical parking permit Mr X had to display in the vehicle while parking. Ms Y is the registered keeper of the vehicle Mr X drives.
21. Mr X has mental health conditions including Schizophrenia which can make him paranoid and fearful about people knowing personal information about him, such as the area where he lives. On occasion, this paranoid thinking causes Mr X not to display his parking permit correctly. Mr X also suffers from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which causes him great difficulty meeting deadlines and handling administrative tasks.
22. The Council issued Ms Y’s vehicle a PCN for parking without displaying a permit on 7 July 2023. It included details of how to challenge the PCN online or in writing. Mr X emailed the Council the same day asking it to cancel the PCN. He said he received the fine despite paying for a permit the same day.
23. The Council emailed Mr X on 28 July. It said he was not the registered keeper so it could not discuss the case with him as he was not legally responsible for the PCN.
24. The Council wrote to Mr X again on 1 August 2023 following another informal challenge. It said it decided not to cancel the PCN. It said it did not issue electronic or paperless permits at present, and it was a condition of the permit to clearly display it. It said Mr X could pay a discounted £55 if they paid the PCN within 14 days, or formally challenge it using the Notice to Owner (NtO) form which Ms Y would receive if they did not pay the PCN within 28 days of its issue.
25. The Council sent NtO to Ms Y on 25 August with a charge of £110. It detailed how to pay or make representations.
26. Mr X emailed the Council challenging multiple PCNs, including the one issued 7 July 2023. He asked the Council to cancel the PCNs as he has a permit to use the car park. He said he suffers paranoid schizophrenia and takes the permit on and off his car each day due to paranoia about people finding where he lives. He said he challenged the PCNs and the Council rejected his challenges but did not give details on how to appeal to the independent parking tribunal.
27. The Council wrote to Ms Y on 12 September 2023 about Mr X challenging the PCN. It said the challenge needed to be made by Ms Y as registered keeper. It asked for written permission within 14 days, or to write with a formal challenge.
28. Ms Y emailed the Council on 27 September giving Mr X permission to challenge the PCN as he solely uses the car. Ms Y asked the Council to bear in mind Mr X is very sick and the back-and-forth processes about the PCNs made him ill.
29. The Council sent Ms Y a charge certificate on 4 October 2023 as they did not pay the PCN. This increased the £110 charge to £165.
30. Mr X asked the Council for a verification code to appeal to the London tribunals in April 2024, as the Council had not provided it.
31. The Council said the PCN was at the charge certificate stage, meaning it has passed the adjudication stage.
32. Mr X said he was suffering a crisis and was in hospital, which is why he was late to appeal. He asked for the verification code or he would complain.
33. The Council repeated the PCN had passed the stage where Mr X could go to tribunal.
34. Mr X said he was not well, in and out of hospital, and the PCN went against the Council’s equality and disability policy. He asked the Council to cancel the PCN and give him the verification code to take it to court.
35. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s reasons for not dealing with the PCN sooner. However, it said it could not consider this because the statutory notices were not in his name and it did not send them to him. The registered keeper failed to respond to any of the letters the Council sent. It said it would continue to send statutory notices to the registered keeper and may appoint enforcement agents to collect outstanding balances if the registered keeper failed to make contact.
36. Mr X said the keeper is usually but not always liable. He said he had liaised with the Council for over a year regarding himself being the driver. He said the fines were not just, and the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for his vulnerabilities. He again asked for a verification code so he could go to the London tribunals.
37. The Council said the DVLA registered keeper is responsible for paying the fine or challenging the PCN even if the contravention is committed by a third party. It said the registered keeper failed to respond to any of its notices. It said Mr X was not required to take any further action, and it would not enter into further correspondence with him.
38. The Council issued a recovery order from the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) on 13 September 2024. Ms Y had until 11 October to pay or file a statement if they believed there were grounds for not paying the charge. The order explained how to make a witness statement, if one of the following applied: Already paid in full; did not receive the NtO; did not receive a response to representations; appealed against the Council’s rejections of representations but did not receive a response.
39. The Council instructed enforcement agents in November 2024. The enforcement agents wrote to Ms Y with a notice of enforcement for £250. There was no response, so the enforcement agents tried to telephone Ms Y about the debt in November and December 2024, and in January 2025, but could not speak with her.
40. Mr X asked his local councillor to contact the Council on behalf of about the PCN, and other PCNs he received. The Council told Mr X’s local councillor in January 2025 that it previously advised Mr X of the need to provide valid evidence to support the health mitigation he highlighted in order to challenge the PCNs. The Council confirmed it had now received Mr X’s medical evidence confirming diagnosis and treatment in 2022. The Council said the contraventions occurred from July 2023, meaning Mr X deemed himself fit to drive. The Council was not satisfied the mitigation Mr X raised was sufficient to cancel the PCNs. While it acknowledged his health constraints, it said parking and traffic rules apply equally to all motorists. If they are fit enough to drive, they must accept the responsibilities it entails.
41. The enforcement agents visited Mr X and Ms Y’s property on 5 February 2025. This visit incurred more costs. There was no answer, so they clamped Ms Y’s vehicle. They removed the clamp after Mr X paid the debt of £595 in full.
42. Mr X complained in July 2025 about the Council’s handling of the PCN, for procedural failings and breach of the public sector equality duty. He said the Council was aware of his health issues for two years but failed to make reasonable adjustments. He said he completed all forms and court paperwork but did not receive any response from the Council. He also said the Council did not answer his telephone calls and the enforcement agents who attended threatened physical harm if he did not pay.
43. The Council said Mr X was not the registered keeper of the vehicle, so the statutory notices would not have been sent to him. The Council was not pursuing him, and he was not legally responsible for the fine.
44. Mr X said the Council had already acknowledged him as the authorised representative of the keeper in previous email correspondence from January 2025, where it gave specific information on several PCNs, reviewed his mitigation evidence and instructed him to deal with enforcement agents.
45. The Council acknowledged it previously discussed aspects of PCNs with Mr X, but said there were limits to what it can share. It recommended Mr X raise his complaints about the enforcement agent with them direct. It said it decided to stop handling PCN enquiries by telephone in 2012 for audit and record keeping purposes. Motorists must follow the statutory process.
46. Mr X asked the Council to cancel the PCN and refund the £595 paid to the enforcement agent. He also asked for a reasonable adjustments flag for his vehicle so he could use a virtual permit, not a physical one. Mr X also complained about threatening behaviour by the enforcement agent at their visit on 5 February 2025.
47. The Council asked Mr X the grounds for his request to cancel the PCN and issue a refund, and provide any evidence from his GP about how his medical condition effected the parking contravention that occurred. It said it does not currently have a virtual permit system, but it was looking to set up one soon and can grant Mr X’s request then.
48. The Council said it asked the enforcement agent to provide details of their visit. They advised an experienced officer attended. There was no response, so they posted a letter. They also immobilised a vehicle belonging to Ms Y. There was no evidence in the case notes that the visit was strained, and they returned to remove the clamp the same day following payment. The Council said there was no evidence of physical threats, but this could be an offence in law and Mr X may wish to report it to the police.
49. Mr X made a stage two complaint on 3 September 2025 about the PCN issued on 7 July 2023. He said the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments, failed to follow correct procedures, and failed in its oversight of the enforcement agents. He said the fact the Council cancelled his other PCNs was evidence it should have exercised discretion in this case. Mr X attached a GP letter in support, explaining his medical conditions.
50. Mr X said the parking contravention on 7 July 2023 was unintentional and directly related to his disability. His condition sometimes caused him not to display his resident’s permit correctly due to paranoid thinking. He said this was a situation where reasonable adjustments and discretion were necessary to prevent a disabled person being unfairly penalised. Instead, he said the Council progressed the PCN in the normal way, with no adjustments. He acknowledged he did not appeal to the tribunal within 28 days of the notice of rejection, but said this was also down to his disabilities. He said the Council should have reached out to him before instructing enforcement agents, as it was aware of his disability and the reason why he did not appeal on time. He also said clamping a vulnerable debtor was not proportionate.
51. The Council reaffirmed it sends statutory notices to the registered keeper, and they are legally responsible for the PCN, not Mr X.
52. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s medical evidence, and that such evidence can be considered in an appeal or representation. However, it said Mr X did not follow the statutory process for making representations in this case. It said it considers each case on its own merits, and the fact it withdrew other PCNs does not necessarily mean it will take the same approach in this case. Nor does it mean it acted improperly.
53. The Council asked Mr X if he made the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) aware of his medical conditions, as they must be reported. It asked for evidence of this, and it would then be willing to consider Mr X’s request for repayment.
54. The Council said its actions instructing enforcement agents were not unlawful or disproportionate, and it pointed out Mr X is not the debtor in this case. That is the registered keeper.

My investigation

55. Mr X told me his ADHD explains why he struggled to respond to the PCN processes in standard timeframes and why the Council’s escalation to enforcement caused him such harm.
56. The Council told us it wrote off four PCNs involving Ms Y’s vehicle, three of which on compassionate grounds due to the mitigation Mr X put forward. However, the PCN issued on 7 July 2023 progressed to enforcement agents. The Council said Mr X continued to try to bypass statutory processes by raising repeated complaints through local councillors and the Council’s chief executive.

Analysis

57. The Council rejected Mr X’s informal challenges. It gave Ms Y or Mr X longer to pay the PCN at the discounted rate, or said they could wait for the NtO. The Council considered the reasons why Mr X did not display his parking permit but decided there were no grounds to cancel the PCN. I appreciate Mr X strongly disagrees, due to his disability, but that was a decision the Council was entitled to reach, and I have not seen evidence of fault. It is not our role to decide whether that decision was discriminatory. That is the role of the courts. We consider whether the Council’s decision had regard to Mr X’s disability, and I am satisfied its responses show that it did.
58. Mr X challenged the PCN again after Ms Y received the NtO. The Council wrote to Ms Y advising she must challenge the PCN herself, but also asking for her permission to consider the challenge made by Mr X on her behalf. Ms Y wrote to the Council giving Mr X permission to challenge the PCN. However, I did not see evidence the Council did then consider Mr X’s challenge. Instead, it obtained a recovery order from the court. That was fault. The Council should have considered Mr X’s representations after receiving permission from Ms Y and, if it maintained its rejection, this would have given Mr X or Ms Y the chance to appeal to the tribunal.
59. However, I do not consider this caused significant injustice because the subsequent recovery order details how to file a witness statement with the court if the Council has not responded to formal representations, as was the case here. While I appreciate Mr X’s disability may make filing a witness statement on time difficult, the recovery order was addressed to Ms Y, and I have not seen any reason why she could not have done so within the permitted timeframe. Also, it is possible to file an out of time witness statement with the court.
60. Mr X said the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for his vulnerabilities after he was late trying to appeal. Mr X did not ask the Council for more time or to extend the deadline before it passed. In addition, the notices were sent to Ms Y, and I have not seen any reason why Ms Y could not have appealed or made a statement to the court on time.
61. The Council said it could not consider the grounds Mr X raised because the notices were not in his name and Ms Y did not respond. However, on the evidence seen, Ms Y did respond to the Council’s letter about Mr X making representations on her behalf, and she gave him permission to deal with the matter. That being the case, the Council could have considered Mr X’s appeal late, before it instructed enforcement agents. There was nothing preventing the Council from doing so. Councils have discretion to consider cancelling a PCN at any point throughout the process. Its failure to consider this, or to consider whether it should exercise discretion in view of Mr X’s circumstances is fault.
62. While I appreciate Mr X’s medical conditions make him vulnerable, and enforcement action caused him distress, Mr X is not the registered keeper of the vehicle. That is Ms Y. The Council’s instructions to its enforcement agent correctly named Ms Y as the debtor, and the subsequent enforcement paperwork was addressed to Ms Y. As far as I am aware, Ms Y is not vulnerable. Having chosen to instruct enforcement agents to recover the unpaid PCN, the Council followed the correct procedures and was not at fault in this regard.
63. It was inevitably distressing having enforcement agents visit. However, their notices were addressed to Ms Y, as the debtor, and I have seen no evidence to suggest Ms Y is vulnerable. The agents only visited the property because Ms Y did not respond to their communications. I have not seen evidence of fault in the actions of the enforcement agents, who appeared to follow the standard process.
64. In terms of making reasonable adjustments on the parking permit, the Council told Mr X it did not issue virtual permits at the time, only physical ones. Though it has confirmed it plans to introduce them in future. The Council agreed to consider refunding Mr X on receipt of evidence Mr X notified the DVLA of his medical condition. The Council has a duty to make adjustments for a person’s disability where they are reasonable. Reasonable is a subjective term which is not defined in the relevant law, and the law cannot be specific about what adjustments must be made for every disability or every scenario. The matter is therefore one of judgement for the Council, having considered the circumstances. I am satisfied the Council has considered the circumstances and was not at fault in asking for further evidence before deciding to cancel the PCN.
65. Where we find a council at fault in the PCN process we normally recommend reconsidering a motorist’s representations, considering whether to exercise discretion to accept late representations, or starting the process again. In this case, the Council has agreed to consider Mr X’s request for a refund if he provides evidence he notified the DVLA about his medical condition, which is a requirement. I consider this to be a suitable remedy for the injustice resulting from the procedural fault identified in this case. I have not asked the Council to restart the process, because Ms Y, as registered keeper, had the chance to file a witness statement.
66. The Council’s failure to consider Mr X’s representations on behalf of Ms Y before instructing enforcement agents caused Mr X avoidable distress, particularly in view of his vulnerability. The Council agreed to provide Mr X a symbolic financial remedy in recognition of the impact this failing had on him.

Back to top

Agreed Action

67. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused to him by the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended
• Repeat its offer to consider refunding Mr X on submission of evidence he notified the DVLA of his medical condition.
• Pay Mr X £100 for the avoidable distress its faults caused, in view of his vulnerability.
68. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

69. I found the Council at fault for failing to consider Mr X’s representations on behalf of Ms Y, and for failing to consider exercising discretion to review his later representations before instructing enforcement agents.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman