What do complaints teach us about end of life care?

See our latest report on the lessons that can be learnt from our complaints about end of life care given in care homes and in the home.

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (25 031 919)

Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 27 May 2026

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about enforcement action taken following a parking penalty charge notice (PCN). This is because there is not significant enough injustice to justify investigation.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complains about the action of the Council’s enforcement agents (EA) seeking payment of a PCN. She says this caused anxiety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. The Council issued two PCNs to Ms X. When no payment was made, the Council passed one of the PCNs to an enforcement agent (EA) to recover the debt. The EA wrote to and telephoned Ms X, including threatening to come to her home. Whilst I appreciate Ms X may have found the EA action stressful, I do not consider that a significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating the complaint. This is especially so as the Council has now withdrawn the PCN from the EA.
  2. Ms X made a late witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) in which she stated she did not receive earlier correspondence about the PCN. If the TEC accepts that statement and puts the recovery action back to an earlier stage, Ms X will have the right to appeal to an independent adjudicator where she can argue any mitigating circumstances relevant to when she incurred the PCN.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings