Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s representations against a penalty charge notice. This is because the Council has taken suitable steps to remedy the impact of its error on Mr X by reinstating his right of appeal, and this provides a suitable remedy for the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council deleted his representations against a penalty charge notice (PCN) and prevented him from appealing. It then escalated the case, increasing the amount of the penalty charge, without properly dealing with his complaint. He says this caused him stress and anxiety.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
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 for London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued Mr X a PCN in 2025. Mr X made representations against the PCN but later asked the Council to delete attachments he had sent with his representations under his ‘right to erasure’. The Council initiated stated Mr X had asked to withdraw his representations but later acknowledged it had deleted them as it could not delete the attachments on their own. Mr X did not pay the PCN, as he was waiting for a response to his representations, and the Council therefore escalated the case and issued a charge certificate, increasing the amount owed.
8. Mr X complained to the Council and in response to the complaint the Council confirmed it had reconsidered his representations but decided there were no grounds to cancel the PCN. It therefore sent Mr X a formal ‘notice of rejection’ allowing him to appeal to London Tribunals. Mr X says he contacted London Tribunals but their online records show he did not appeal. He also did not pay the PCN, so the Council escalated the case and issued a second charge certificate.
9. I am satisfied the Council took appropriate steps to remedy the impact of its deletion of Mr X’s representations by considering his representations outside the normal statutory process and issuing a notice of rejection, allowing him to appeal to London Tribunals. Had Mr X wished to dispute the PCN further it would have been reasonable for him to appeal, but because he did not the Council was entitled to escalate the case again by issuing a new charge certificate.
10. The Council’s actions put Mr X back in the position he would have been, had it not deleted his initial representations, and it is unlikely further investigation would achieve significantly more for him.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s consideration of Mr X's representations, and its notice of rejection, provided a suitable remedy for Mr X and it is unlikely we would recommend anything more for him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman