Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of two penalty charge notices. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of Ms X’s vulnerability and it would be reasonable for Ms X to apply to the court to take the cases back to an earlier stage.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to take proper account of her vulnerability when taking action to recover payment for two penalty charge notices (PCNs). She says she was not responsible for the PCNs and is a victim of domestic abuse. She wants the Council to call the cases back from its enforcement agents (bailiffs) and allow her to pay by instalments.

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)
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 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)
5. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. While the Council must take account of any claimed vulnerabilities the evidence I have seen shows it did this in Ms X’s case. It acknowledged the points she raised, put further enforcement action on hold and explained its bailiffs had a dedicated team to deal with vulnerable debtors. But Ms X said she did not want the Council to pass the case to this team and instead demanded it take the case back and deal with her directly. She is entitled to ask the Council to do this but the Council was under no obligation to agree. Its response is clear and rational and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it handled the request.
9. Ms X is unhappy the Council did not respond to her complaint in November 2025 but it has already set out its position and recommended Ms X go to the TEC to make a late witness statement and this is the best course of action for her in the circumstances.
10. If the TEC accepts Ms X’s application it may order the Council to take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the PCN and removing the basis for any bailiff charges. The TEC does not need to show fault by the Council but it can achieve the outcome Ms X wants. I therefore consider it reasonable for Ms X to use this process.

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 in its handling of the PCNs and it would be reasonable for Ms X to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman