Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to London Tribunals.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council issued her a penalty charge notice (PCN) for a contravention she was not responsible for. She says her vehicle was written off before the contravention occurred and although she has provided evidence of this the Council has refused to cancel the PCN.

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 for 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council issued Mrs X the PCN on 27 August 2025. Mrs X made representations against it and the Council requested further information from her on 25 September 2025. It considered the further information Mrs X provided but was not satisfied with this so issued her a notice of rejection on 10 October. The notice of rejection set out Mrs X’s options to appeal to London Tribunals or pay the PCN in full within 28 days. Mrs X did neither so the Council escalated the case and issued a charge certificate. It then registered the unpaid PCN as a debt with the TEC.
10. Had Mrs X wanted to challenge the PCN further it would have been reasonable for her to appeal. The restriction at Paragraph 3 therefore applies.
11. Mrs X has recently applied to the TEC to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case and is awaiting the TEC’s decision. If the TEC accepts Mrs X’s application it may order the Council to take the process back, reducing the amount of the penalty charge and reinstating Mrs X’s right of appeal against it. We cannot consider any complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s representations because this formed the basis of her application to the TEC.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to London Tribunals.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman