Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of representations about a penalty charge notice. This is because any injustice suffered by Mr X is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice (PCN). He says the information provided by the Council suggested he could pay the PCN and make representations after paying the charge. But he paid the PCN and the Council closed the case.
2. Mr X says he lost the opportunity to make representations against the PCN. He would like the Council to apologise, update its documentation and compensate him for financial loss caused by the error.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council issued a PCN to Mr X in April 2026. Mr X paid the charge within the discounted period to avoid further escalation. The next day he wrote to the Council advising he intended to challenge the PCN; he submitted his representations two days later. Mr X’s representation centred on signage and road markings.
7. The Council responded to Mr X advising that following payment it considered the case closed.
8. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there are good reasons to believe a complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice leading to serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of fault by the Council.
9. The Council confirms Mr X’s representations did not provide good reasons to cancel the PCN and had it rejected Mr X’s representations instead of treating the case as closed, it would likely have offered Mr X an extended window to pay at the discounted rate. At best, Mr X may have achieved cancellation of the PCN but due to the nominal fee involved at the discounted stage, this is not a significant enough amount to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice suffered is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman