Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s recovery of a penalty charge notice. It was reasonable for him to use his right of appeal, or apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre again, if he believed there were flaws in the Council’s second recovery action.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s continued enforcement of a penalty charge notice (PCN) which he says the County Court cancelled. He says the matter has caused him unnecessary distress and inconvenience. He wants the Council to stop its enforcement action.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals within London.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (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

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. The evidence I have seen shows:
• In May 2024, the Council issued Mr X a PCN for parking in a resident parking place without a valid permit;
• As the Council did not receive payment or a challenge to the PCN, it escalated the case and registered it with the Court for recovery in June 2025. Mr X then submitted a witness statement to the TEC on the grounds that he did not receive a rejection notice to his representations and did not receive a response to his appeal;
• The TEC accepted his witness statement, which revoked the Council’s escalation of the PCN. The Council then reissued the Notice to Owner, allowing Mr X the opportunity to challenge the PCN again;
• As the Council did not receive payment or a challenge to the PCN from Mr X, it re-escalated the case and registered it with the Court for recovery again.
10. Mr X’s application to the TEC did not cancel the PCN. It only cancelled the Council’s recovery action at that time and brought the matter back to an earlier stage. If Mr X disagreed with the re-issued Notice to Owner then he could have made formal representations against it. If the Council rejected them, then he could have appealed to London Tribunals. I see no evidence to suggest it was unreasonable for him to appeal and therefore I will not investigate this part of his complaint.
11. I acknowledge the Council returned the case to the Notice to Owner stage rather than the appeal stage. However, I do not consider this disadvantaged Mr X, as it placed the case at an earlier point in the process. In any event, if Mr X believed there were faults in the Council’s second recovery action, he could have applied to the TEC again. I consider it was reasonable to expect him to do so, particularly as he had used this process before. Therefore, I will also not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it was reasonable for him to use his right of appeal or apply to the TEC again.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman