London Borough of Hackney (25 016 465)
Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 04 Feb 2026
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice as it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed against it to the independent tribunal or authorised Miss X, the driver at the time, to do so.
The complaint
- Miss X complains about a parking penalty charge notice (PCN) she incurred when she was driving Mr X’s car. Miss X complains she had only waited at the location for four minutes and had driven away before the warden could place the ticket on the car. The Council sent the PCN in the post. Miss X says she is not prepared to pay a PCN she was not made aware of at the time.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- The enforcement of PCNs is a legal process. The process provides an appeal mechanism by which Mr X, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, or Miss X, under Mr X’s authorisation, could have challenged the PCN to independent parking adjudicators at London Tribunals (LT). We are not another level of appeal in this process and cannot decide whether the PCN should stand or not. It is reasonable therefore to expect an appeal to LT to have been made and we will not investigate, as per paragraph three.
Final decision
- We will not investigate this complaint because it is reasonable for the PCN to have been challenged by an appeal to LT either by Mr X or Miss X, under Mr X’s authorisation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman