Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s issue and handling of two penalty charge notices. This is because it was reasonable for him to use his right of appeal. He has also used his alternative remedy to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court. Therefore, we cannot investigate any alleged flaws in the Council’s escalation of one of the penalty charge notices.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling and enforcement of two penalty charge notices (PCNs). He says the Council wrongly issued him two PCNs for the same offence and although the Council agreed to cancel the first PCN, it has pursued him for payment of the second. Mr X alleges failures in the Council’s actions to escalate the PCN and he applied to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) to take the process back to an earlier stage. But he says the Council has since reinitiated enforcement action without prior notice and he was forced to pay £430 including a £20 card fee.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused him significant emotional and financial distress. He says the Council’s enforcement after cancelling the original PCN is unjust. He wants the Council to refund the payment, pay him compensation and apologise for its errors.

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. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals within London.
6. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
7. The TEC is part of Northampton County Court. It considers applications from local authorities to pursue payment of unpaid PCNs and from motorists to challenge local authorities’ pursuit of unpaid PCNs. An application to the TEC provides an alternative remedy for any alleged fault in the Council’s escalation of a PCN.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. The evidence I have seen shows:
• In 2023, the Council issued Mr X two PCNs for parking without clearly displaying a valid pay ticket (PCN-1 and PCN-2). Mr X informally challenged PCN-1 and the Council cancelled it;
• Because Mr X did not challenge or pay PCN-2 the Council escalated the case and commenced recovery action. In 2024, Mr X made an application to the TEC, which it accepted. This revoked the Council’s escalation of PCN-2 and brought it back to an earlier stage;
• In mid-2024, the Council reissued PCN-2. Mr X made formal representations against PCN-2 which the Council rejected. The Council advised Mr X of his right of appeal to London Tribunals but he did not appeal;
• Because Mr X did not pay or appeal PCN-2 the Council then escalated the case again and in 2025, registered it with the TEC for recovery;
• Mr X has now paid PCN-2 in full but filed another application with the TEC to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case. In early 2026, the TEC rejected Mr X’s application.
11. Mr X’s first application to the TEC did not cancel PCN-2. It only cancelled the Council’s recovery at that time and brought the matter back to an earlier stage. The Council’s notice of rejection provided Mr X with a right of appeal against the PCN to London Tribunals and I have seen no evidence to suggest it was unreasonable for him to appeal. Therefore, as per the exclusion in paragraph 4, I will not investigate this aspect of his complaint.
12. Mr X’s second application to the TEC prevents us from investigating any alleged flaws in the Council’s re-escalation of PCN-2. This is the case even though the TEC refused his application.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to use his right of appeal and he has used his alternative remedy to the TEC.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman