Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to refund Mr X’s payment for a penalty charge notice following a court decision. This is because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £100 and this provides a suitable remedy for his injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to refund his payment for a penalty charge notice (PCN) following his successful application to cancel its escalation to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X’s representative (Mrs Y) and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X did not receive the initial PCN and only became aware of it when the Council’s enforcement agents (bailiffs) contacted him demanding payment of £280. Mr X therefore applied to the TEC to make a late witness statement/statutory declaration.
6. The TEC’s decision in September 2025 cancelled the Council’s escalation of the case and took the PCN process back to the initial stage. The decision did not cancel the PCN itself.
7. The Council confirms the PCN remains payable at the initial discounted rate of £65 and it should therefore have refunded Mr X £215. Instead, the Council told him it would refund £140. It explained he may contact the bailiffs directly about any fees they charged but despite the clear confusion caused by the conflicting amounts it made no attempts to clarify with the bailiffs whether they had retained any payment.
8. In response to my enquiries the Council has now provided evidence to show it has issued Mr X a refund of the £140 it received for the PA and its bailiffs have refunded their £75 fee. It has however taken seven months from the date of the TEC’s decision to reach this point and Mr X has been put to the time and trouble of complaining to the Council and the Ombudsman when the Council could have resolved the issue much sooner. I have therefore invited the Council to provide a remedy to Mr X and the Council, to its credit, has agreed to my proposal.

Back to top

Agreed actions

9. The Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X for the delay in refunding his payment; and
• Pay Mr X £100 for the injustice caused.
10. The Council will complete the agreed actions within four weeks.
11. The remedy agreed by the Council is sufficient for the injustice caused to Mr X so further investigation is unlikely to achieve significantly more.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s agreed actions provide a suitable remedy for Mr X’s injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman