Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the enforcement of a Penalty Charge Notice. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to seek to regain their appeal rights, and then to appeal to a tribunal. The symbolic payment offered by the Council for its administrative delay is a suitable remedy for any injustice caused by the delay.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council did not follow public law standards of fairness, timeliness and good administration when following the statutory penalty charge notice (PCN) enforcement procedures. Mr B says the Council failed to register the PCN debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) and attempted to enforce a moving traffic contravention under the wrong legislation. Mr B wants the Council to provide an explanation for its 16 months delay, cancel the PCN and pay him £195 for the distress and inconvenience it caused to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court or use 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 go to court or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(6)(a) and (c), as amended)
4. London Tribunals considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for the rest of England. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), part of the county court, considers applications to set the PCN process back where there has been procedural fault.
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from the complainant and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Council sent Mr B a PCN in September 2024. It sent then sent a charge certificate to Mr B in October 2024. Mr B made representations about a week later and said he did not receive the PCN. He asked if he could pay at the discounted rate of £65 instead of paying £195 as demanded in the charge certificate.
8. The Council did not respond to Mr B until January 2026. It said the service of the charge certificate had removed his right to make representations against the PCN. It said £195 was due but it would accept the discounted amount of £65 because Mr B had said he did not receive the PCN.
9. Mr B complained to the Council about what he said was an excessive and unreasonable delay of 16 months to respond to him. He said the Council was responsible for systematic administrative failure, inconsistent procedural conduct and failure of duty.
10. After considering the complaint at both stages of its complaint procedures the Council accepted its delay was excessive and reflected poor administrative practice. It accepted its initial wording about registering the debt with the TEC lacked clarity and confirmed it would register the debt with the TEC so the TEC could consider matters relating to the PCN process and escalation. The Council apologised for its delay and the injustice this had caused to Mr B. It offered a £50 symbolic payment to Mr B in acknowledgement of the injustice caused.
11. We will not investigate the complaint relating to the administrative practice dealt with under the Council’s complaint procedures. The Council offered a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by its fault. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
12. We will not investigate this complaint about procedural matters relating to the PCN because it is reasonable to expect Mr B to apply to the TEC to seek to regain his appeal rights, and then to appeal to a tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman