Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charge Notices issued by the Council. This is mainly because the complainant had a right of appeal which we consider it reasonable for her to have used where she has not already done so.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her application for a resident’s parking permit, which the Council issued after almost five months. During that time Ms X received many penalty charge notices (PCNs), which she says caused her stress and financial hardship. Ms X is also unhappy the Council took too long to respond to her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. 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)
5. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X applied to the Council for a resident’s parking permit in March 2025. The Council applied a dispensation to cover the period until the permit was ready, on 20 May. During that time the Council issued Ms X’s car with many PCNs, which it later cancelled. I appreciate it was frustrating and stressful receiving these PCNs. However, as the Council has cancelled them, it is unlikely we could achieve significantly more. It would be disproportionate to investigate this point.
9. The Council says it emailed Ms X on 20 May saying her permit was ready and she should now pay for it. Ms X says she did not receive the email so did not know the permit was ready until 17 July, by which time the Council had cancelled it. Ms X made a new application. The Council issued her parking permit on 27 August.
10. The Council continued issuing over 20 PCNs between 20 May and 27 August. It refused to cancel those PCNs. Ms X appealed against at least one of those PCNs to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT). In her submission she explained the difficulties she had when applying for her parking permit. As paragraph 3 explained, the law prevents us investigating any of the PCNs already appealed to the TPT.
11. We could only investigate Ms X’s complaint about any PCNs she has not appealed against if we were satisfied it was not reasonable to expect Ms X to have appealed. However, the law expressly provides this route for challenging PCNs, so we usually expect people to use it. Appealing is free of charge. We note Ms X does not have fluent English. However, she could have sought advice about appealing and could have asked the TPT for help with that if she wished. Ms X was able to appeal against at least one of the PCNs during this period. Appealing the others, even though there were so many, would not necessarily have been excessively time-consuming, as there would have been similar grounds of appeal each time. Overall, it is reasonable to expect Ms X to have appealed against the PCNs, so I will not investigate this point.
12. The Council issued more PCNs after Ms X had her parking permit. Ms X had the right to appeal against those to the TPT. It is reasonable to expect her to have used her appeal right on any PCNs she received while she had the permit. As explained above, we usually expect people to appeal. I see nothing to suggest it is unreasonable to expect Ms X to appeal against the more recent PCNs.
13. Ms X says the Council’s residents’ parking permit application process was flawed. The main injustice Ms X suffered was receiving PCNs, which can potentially be considered by the TPT, if not already. Ms X can include in any tribunal submission, as she has at least once, her complaint about the Council’s process. The TPT might not be able to remedy other claimed injustice, such as stress and frustration, but that does not mean we can consider those. The matters are too closely linked to what the TPT could consider.
14. Ms X says she moved address and told the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, but the Council sent correspondence about the PCNs to her previous address. If Ms X believed this disadvantaged her, she could have raised this point in appeals to the TPT. So we will not investigate this point.
15. The Council apologised for its delay in responding to a complaint from Ms X. As we are not investigating the substantive matter, it would not be a good use of public resources to investigate this.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We cannot investigate the PCNs that Ms X appealed against to the TPT. It would be disproportionate for us to investigate the PCNs the Council cancelled. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the other PCNs because she had a right of appeal which we consider it reasonable for her to have used. As the TPT could consider if the Council’s residential parking permit process caused Ms X avoidably to receive PCNs we will not investigate that. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman