Summary: Ms X complained about the Council handling of her Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Ms X said this distressed her. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council handling of her Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Ms X said this distressed her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 s34H(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read Ms X’s complaint.
5. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms 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

Background information

7. If a motorist breaks moving traffic rules, they might receive a fine. This fine is called a Penalty Charge Notice.
8. The authority will send the notice to the person who appears to own the vehicle (usually the registered keeper) by post. The notice will show the fine amount and how to appeal.
9. The motorist has 28 days from the date of the notice to pay the fine or ‘make representations’ against it.
10. The fine is usually halved if it is paid within 14 days in London or within 21 days outside London.
11. If the authority rejects the appeal, the motorist can appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. 
12. The authority can issue a charge certificate which increases the fine by 50% if:

• the fine is not paid;
• the motorist does not appeal against the fine; or
• the appeal is not successful.

13. If the fine is still not paid, the authority can register the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. The authority can then ask enforcement agents (bailiffs) to collect payment for the fine and the bailiff’s costs.
14. The motorist can apply to the TEC to ask them to cancel the registration of the debt. They do this by filling in a witness statement or statutory declaration.
15. If the motorist is successful, the TEC might order the authority to go back to an earlier stage which will reduce the fine and they will not have to pay the bailiff’s costs. It might also give them back their right to appeal.
16. If the motorist is too late to make a witness statement they might be able to ask the TEC to look at their application ‘out of time’. If the TEC will not look at the application ‘out of time’ they might be able to ask them to review their decision.
17. The DVLA website confirms an individual must update the vehicle log book if they change address. An individual must be contactable at the address they provide the DVLA.

What happened

18. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
19. The Council issued Ms X a PCN in July 2024. The PCN was sent to Ms X’s address using her sole trader’s name, the name the car was registered under. The PCN gave Ms X the opportunity to pay a reduced rate if paid within 14 days.
20. The Council issued the charge certificate in August 2024 as it had not heard from Ms X. This increased the balance of the debt.
21. The Council issued the order for recovery notice in September 2024. The Council passed the debt to an enforcement agency (the agency).
22. The agency sent a notice of enforcement to Ms X’s address in November 2024, increasing the debt to nearly £300. Ms X contacted the agency the following week. She explained she had not received the PCN, had appealed to the TEC and asked the Council to pause enforcement action. The agency sent a reminder to Ms X and asked her to evidence she appealed to the TEC.
23. A week later the agency escalated the debt, adding further charges, taking the amount owed to over £500. Ms X said she was seeking a resolution and asked the agency to pause enforcement action.
24. At the start of December 2024, the agency told Ms X it could not pause enforcement action unless she evidenced her appeal to the TEC. Ms X appealed the PCN to the TEC and sent a copy to the agency. The agency placed the case on hold until the TEC heard the appeal.
25. The TEC refused Ms X’s appeal in February 2025.
26. Ms X complained to the agency in March 2025. She complained about unfair enforcement action and failure to follow procedures. The agency sent Ms X a complaint pack for her to complete.
27. Ms X also contacted the Council expressing her distress at the situation, saying the agency ignored the household vulnerability. She asked the Council to remove the enforcement charges and offer a payment plan. The Council explained the TEC refused her application, and the enforcement would resume. The Council told Ms X to discuss her circumstances with the agency.
28. The agency issued its complaint response two weeks later. The response noted it asked Ms X to evidence her appeal to the TEC. Once it received the evidence it placed the account on hold. It agreed it should have held the account earlier, and removed the enforcement fee, reducing the debt back to nearly £300. Ms X offered the agency £5 per month to clear the debt. The agency asked Ms X to provide details of income and expenditure to consider her request.
29. Ms X provided details of income and expenditure in April 2024. The agency tried to contact Ms X by telephone and email. The agency said it needed to confirm Ms X’s identity, as the information on the income and expenditure form was not in the same name as the PCN.
30. The agency visited Ms X again in July 2025. Ms X paid £80 and offered to pay £50 per month to pay off the debt.
31. Ms X complained to the Council the same day. She said the agency visited her home and asked the Council to cancel the PCN and enforcement charges. She said the agency was harassing her and impacting vulnerable people. She explained her family members health needs.
32. Ms X asked the agency to escalate her complaint three days after she contacted the Council. She complained about a lack of contact. The agency spoke to Ms X on the phone. The agency explained Ms X needed to engage with bailiffs to arrange for the payment.
33. The agency continued to visit Ms X’s home to enforce the debt. Ms X continued to challenge the additional enforcement fees and explained the vulnerability of the household.
34. The agency responded to Ms X’s escalation at the end of July 2025. The agency said vulnerabilities did not invalidate the PCN but if she engaged with the enforcement agents, they could consider a payment plan. Ms X then confirmed she did not legally live at the address.
35. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in August 2025. The response detailed the actions taken. The Council said the agency’s welfare team had tried to contact Ms X to ask for missing documents and evidence but did not receive a response. The Council stated a vulnerability did not invalidate the PCN. The Council did not uphold the complaint.
36. Ms X asked the Council to escalate her response two days later. She said the agency repeatedly ignored her and the household vulnerabilities. She asked the Council to cancel the PCN, withdraw enforcement action, apologise and compensate her.
37. The Council issued its stage two response in September 2025. The Council said it followed the correct procedure and did not uphold the complaint.
38. Ms X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Ms X would like the Council to cancel the PCN.

My findings

39. The Council followed the correct process for issuing the PCN. The process of issuing the PCN is not part of this complaint, and I cannot consider it further, as Ms X appealed the PCN to the TEC. Ms X complains about the Council enforcement of the PCN.
40. Ms X said she did not receive the PCN. The Council checked Ms X’s address against the DVLA registration. The Council must evidence it sent the PCN, not an individual receiving the PCN. The Council has evidenced it sent the PCN to the address registered with DVLA. The Council was not at fault.
41. When Ms X considered the PCN, she appealed to the TEC. The agency asked Ms X for evidence she appealed to the TEC, and when Ms X provided the evidence, it stopped enforcement action. The Council and the agency later agreed to remove additional charges applied before the appeal as a gesture of goodwill. The Council was not at fault.
42. Ms X has confirmed she does not live at the address the agency visited. The Council got the address by checking with the DVLA. The Council can enforce the debt at the address given to the DVLA. If an individual does not live at the address, it is reasonable for them to update their address. This would end enforcement action at a reported incorrect address. I have seen no change of address contact from Ms X. The Council has enforced a debt at the address the car was registered to. The Council was not at fault.
43. Ms X stated the agency did not respond to her, or her payment plan offer. I have seen communications between the agency and Ms X. The agency responded to Ms X’s communications. At times it asked for confirmation or evidence, but I have seen no evidence Ms X responded. There is confusion in this matter, because the car was not registered under Ms X’s name, it was registered under the sole trader’s name she uses. This meant when Ms X asked the agency to consider a payment plan, it asked her for approval to speak to her. It was reasonable for the agency to seek this clarification as it has a duty under data protection legislation, given the sole trader’s name is not the same as Ms X’s. I have seen no response to the agency’s request. I have seen responses to Ms X’s communication. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Decision

44. I have completed my investigation. I have not found fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman