Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s informal challenge to a penalty charge notice. This is because Mr X has sought a remedy for the issue at court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to respond to his informal challenge to a penalty charge notice (PCN) in June 2024. He says that as a result he missed the opportunity to pay the PCN at the discounted rate of £65 or appeal to London Tribunals.
2. Mr X has challenged the Council’s escalation of the case with the Traffic Enforcement Centre but says this process did not put him back in the position he would have been, had he received a response from the Council.

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 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)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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 they have already been to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. Because Mr X has been to the TEC to challenge the Council’s escalation of the PCN we cannot investigate any complaint about the same issue; the exclusion set out at Paragraph 5 applies.
10. Mr X says the process did not provide a full remedy for the injustice he has claimed but caselaw has confirmed that this does not bring the complaint back into our jurisdiction.
11. In any event, the Council has provided a copy of its notice of rejection from 27 April 2026 which acknowledges Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s handling of his challenge in 2024 and states:

“Regarding your comment that you did not receive a response to your initial challenge, please note a response… was issued to the recorded DVLA address. Consideration has been given and on his occasion we are prepared to re-offer you the opportunity to pay the PCN at the discounted rate. Therefore, we have reset the discount period on your PCN which will allow you a further 14 days to pay the discounted amount.”

12. It then sets out Mr X’s options and states:

“Unless you appeal to the Environment & Traffic Adjudicator as described above, you must pay the discount Penalty Charge of £65.00 to this Authority before the end of the 14 day period or you must pay the full Penalty Charge of £130.00 to this Authority before the end of the 28 day period.”

13. The date of the letter is consistent with the timelines provided and the letter itself is correctly addressed. I have seen no evidence to show the Council did not send it so I cannot say, on balance, that it was not properly issued.
14. I am therefore satisfied the Council complied with the TEC’s decision and that it gave Mr X the opportunity to pay the PCN at the discounted rate or appeal, which is what he wanted.
15. The fact the Council escalated the case again and Mr X paid the penalty charge at the increased (charge certificate) rate of £195 is not evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to his informal challenge in 2024 because Mr X has sought a remedy for the issue with the TEC.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman