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 by the Council and its actions did not cause Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to respond to his representations against a penalty charge notice (PCN) and delayed in dealing with his correspondence about the matter. He also says the Council’s online payment system is faulty and prevented him from paying the PCN. He says that as a result he has had to pay £240 to settle the case.

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 do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. I have no reason to doubt Mr X’s claim that he did not receive a response from to his representations against the PCN, but it is unlikely we could say this was the result of any fault by the Council. This is because the Council has provided a copy of its ‘notice of rejection’ dated 17 September 2025, which is correctly addressed, and the Council confirms this was not returned as undelivered. The notice addresses the points Mr X raised in his representations and set out his options to pay or appeal to London Tribunals. The amount owed at that point was £160, which was the full charge for the contravention, as Mr X did not pay within the discounted period of 14 days from the date of the PCN.
6. Because Mr X did not receive the Council’s response he wrote to chase its decision on 7 and 29 September 2025. He also paid the Council £80 at some point, believing the discounted rate for payment should still apply. The Council wrote to Mr X on 18 November 2025 acknowledging Mr X’s payment but explaining there was a remaining balance outstanding of £80. It said Mr X should pay this within seven days and that “Failure to pay may result in further recovery action being taken against you.”
7. Mr X did not pay the remaining £80 within this timeframe and the Council wrote to him again on 25 November explaining the reasons why the discounted rate did not apply, confirming there was an outstanding balance of £80 and providing Mr X with details of how to pay.
8. Mr X still did not pay, so the Council escalated the case and issued a ‘charge certificate’ on 1 December 2025. This increased the amount of the penalty charge by £80, bringing the outstanding balance to £160. Mr X later paid the additional £80 referred to at Paragraphs 6 and 7, but this was not sufficient to clear the debt. He has subsequently paid the remaining £80 owed but he wants the Council to refund the additional payments.
9. I do not find any fault by the Council in its demand for the additional £80 following Mr X’s initial payment, or in issuing the charge certificate on 1 December 2025 which increased the amount of the penalty charge by a further £80. The Council was entitled to take these steps and could have done so sooner. It warned Mr X about the possibility of further action if he did not pay by 25 November and the amounts charged and now paid are in accordance with the legislation.
10. I appreciate Mr X is upset and frustrated about the Council’s delay in responding to his correspondence and with the issues he experienced when trying to pay the PCN online, but I have seen nothing to suggest these issues prevented him from paying completely or directly resulted in any additional charges. I do not therefore consider these points caused Mr X significant injustice or warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or to show the Council’s actions caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman