Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about enforcing a Penalty Charge Notice. It would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal. There is also not enough evidence of fault by the Council during this process.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council wrongly continued recovery action for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) that he believed had been resolved.

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 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X received a PCN in 2023 and made representations to the Council, which it rejected. He says he made payments towards the PCN and, having heard nothing further, assumed the matter had been resolved.
8. When the Council rejected his representations, it told him of his appeal rights. Mr X could have filed a tribunal appeal, and it would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to use this process if he did not agree with the Council’s decision to reject his representations.
9. In 2025 the Council issued an Order for Recovery. Mr X contacted the Council to explain that he had not received the Charge Certificate issued in 2023 and was therefore unaware of any outstanding issue until the Order for Recovery was served. The Council says it sent the correspondence to the correct address. As Mr X received some documents issued during the process, the Council had no reason to believe he had not received the others.
10. Mr X says he provided evidence that he made payments towards the PCN in 2023, at the time the Council could not trace these payments and asked him to provide bank statements to verify them. When Mr X raised the issue again in 2025, the Council made further enquiries but was still unable to locate the payments. It asked for bank statements to verify the payments, Mr X has not yet provided these. While I understand his frustration, the alleged payments were irregular, did not cover the full amount outstanding, and were not clearly linked to the PCN. In these circumstances, it was reasonable for the Council to ask for further evidence and for Mr X to provide it if available.
11. Mr X says the Council should have paused recovery action when he told it he had already paid. Mr X was informed about how to file a witness statement to the TEC, which could have suspended enforcement action while the matter was considered. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the steps it has taken to recover the outstanding payments. It is open for Mr X to send his bank statements if he believes he has paid the PCN.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal. There is also not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman