Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to comply with a penalty charge notice appeal decision by London Tribunals. This is because Mr X applied to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case and we cannot consider a complaint about the same issue now.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to comply with London Tribunals’ decision on his appeal against a penalty charge notice (PCN). London Tribunals directed the Council to cancel the PCN but it escalated the case and registered it with the Traffic Enforcement Centre. Mr X says he went to significant time and effort to challenge the Council’s actions and wants the Council to pay him more than £1,000 for loss of earnings, legal fees and in compensation for the impact its escalation of the case had on him.

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 could take the matter to court. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court but cannot investigate if the person has already been to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council says it was unaware of London Tribunals’ decision on Mr X’s appeal until Mr X provided a copy as part of his complaint in March 2026. Mr X disputes this and says he raised the matter with the Council in November 2025 and January 2026.
8. I make no finding on the date the Council became aware of the decision or, therefore, whether it was at fault for escalating the case and registering it with the TEC. This is because Mr X has sought a remedy for the issue with the TEC and its decision put the case back to an earlier stage. The Council then cancelled the PCN in accordance with the Tribunal’s decision.
9. Because Mr X has used the alternative remedy available to him via the TEC, the restriction set out at Paragraph 3 applies and we have no jurisdiction to investigate his complaint. I appreciate the TEC did not provide a remedy for Mr X’s claimed costs, loss of earnings and other injustice caused by the Council’s actions but caselaw (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH) has established this does not bring the complaint back into our jurisdiction.
10. Mr X claims the Council’s escalation of the case amounts to negligence and he may therefore wish to seek legal advice on the prospect of making a claim for damages against the Council at court.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We cannot investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has used the alternative remedy available to him to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case with the TEC.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman