Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal against the PCN to a tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a parking Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). He says he made formal representations to the Council, but it wrongly treated these as an enquiry. Mr X says, because of this, the Council failed to send him a Notice of Acceptance or Rejection, which affected his right to appeal its decision. He complains the Council delayed sending him the Notice to Owner for almost three months and ignored his requests for evidence.
2. Mr X complains about the Council’s complaint handling. He says the Council refused to progress his complaint and suggested his contact was vexatious.

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. 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.
6. 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, 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. After receiving a PCN in June 2025, Mr X appealed to the Council saying the parking machine was faulty. The Council treated this as an informal challenge and wrote to him explaining why it had rejected the challenge. It gave Mr X the opportunity to pay the PCN at a discounted rate.
10. Mr X complains the Council failed to send a Notice of Rejection after his initial challenge, which affected his ability to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council’s actions were in line with what the law expects. In its complaint responses, the Council explained to Mr X that it would send him a Notice to Owner within six months of the PCN, which would allow him to make formal representations. The Council sent the Notice to Owner in September. It appears Mr X misunderstood that his original challenge was treated as informal representations by the Council. It was the subsequent Notice to Owner that gave rise to Mr X’s right to make formal representations, which the Council could only send after rejecting his informal challenge.
12. So far as Mr X complains the Council should cancel the PCN or not pursue it, we will not investigate this matter. Mr X can follow the statutory appeals procedure to challenge the PCN, ultimately to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal if the Council rejects his formal representations. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to make such an appeal so we will not investigate.
13. Mr X complains the Council ignored his requests for it to disclose evidence relating to the PCN. The Council told Mr X that it would send key evidence showing the contravention with the Notice to Owner. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Also, the Council treated his broader requests for information as Freedom of Information and Subject Access Requests. If Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response or handling of these requests, we would expect Mr X to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
14. It is not a proportionate use of our resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling alone when we are not investigating the central matters complained about. The substantive injustice to Mr X was the PCN and as explained, this could have been remedied by way of following the statutory appeal process. Any separable injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman