Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handing and enforcement of Penalty Charge Notices. On one part the injustice is not significant enough to justify us investigating. On the other part there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling and enforcement of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs). She says the Council did not properly notify her about the PCNs and that it did not give her a fair opportunity to challenge or appeal the PCNs. She also complains the Council did not consider her vulnerabilities in its enforcement action.
2. Mrs X says the matter has impacted her health and wellbeing. She wants the Council to suspend enforcement and review the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The evidence I have seen shows:
• The Council issued three PCNs against Mrs X (PCN-1, PCN-2 and PCN-3).
• In January 2026, the Council’s enforcement agents contacted Mrs X to discuss her vulnerabilities.
• The Council cancelled PCN-1 after Mrs X filed an out-of-time witness statement with the Traffic Enforcement Centre. It also cancelled PCN-2 as a goodwill gesture.
• Miss X appealed PCN-3 to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal however this was rejected. Mrs X has since paid PCN-3 at the discounted rate.
7. As the Council has cancelled PCNs 1 and 2, I do not consider the outstanding injustice to be significant enough to justify us investigating them.
8. With respect to PCN-3, the Tribunal determined the Council properly issued the PCN and considered her representations. The Council was therefore entitled to take enforcement action to recover the outstanding PCN. Its enforcement agents contacted Mrs X to discuss her vulnerabilities. It also allowed Mrs X to pay at the discounted rate. I am therefore satisfied it considered her vulnerabilities and made adjustments for her. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to justify us investigating the cancelled PCNs. There is not enough evidence of fault in respect of the third PCN.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman