Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a disputed penalty charge notice, including how the Council considered X’s representations about it. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable and no significant injustice.

The complaint

1. X complains the Council failed to properly consider their representations about liability for a penalty charge notice (PCN). X says they made an in-time appeal, and the Council wrongly treated it as a late appeal. X says they have now paid the full amount of the charge and believes they should have been allowed to pay at the discounted rate.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. X said they made representations about a PCN in August 2025, within the 14-day period after the Council had issued it. It is during this period that the Council may consider representations, and if declined, a motorist then still has another 14 days to pay the PCN at a discounted rate, which means the fine is halved.
5. X said the Council treated a follow up message they sent to it in September 2025 as a late appeal and consequently X then paid the PCN at the full amount of £105. X believes because of the Council’s mistake, they lost an opportunity to pay the PCN at the discounted rate.
6. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals outside of London. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), part of the county court, considers applications to set the PCN process back where there has been an allegation of procedural fault.
7. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable. Because X has now paid the PCN, they accepted liability and so their right of appeal to TEC is no longer available to them. Additionally, we have no power to tell the Council it should now revert a PCN to an earlier discount.
8. In any case, our role is to consider complaints where a person has suffered serious loss, harm or distress because of the Council’s actions or inactions. Noting the amount of loss to X, because of the fault they allege, I am not satisfied there is a significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate X’s complaint because is no worthwhile outcome achievable and no significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman