Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the enforcement of a Penalty Charge Notice. It would have been reasonable for the complainant to have used the alternative legal remedy available to dispute any charges. Nor will we investigate a complaint about the Council’s use of enforcement agents to recover a debt. The Council has already investigated the complaint, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council failed to follow the correct procedure for a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), saying it did not properly tell them about additional enforcement charges. They say the matter has wrongly progressed through the enforcement procedure.
2. Mrs X also complained the Council was wrong to pass the debt to enforcement agents (EA’s) and a visit by EA’s caused her anxiety and trauma.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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 the complainant and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued Mrs X with a PCN in 2024. Mrs X said she believed she had paid all outstandings costs associated with the PCN and the Council then needlessly escalated the matter to enforcement, which then incurred more costs.
8. On the evidence available the Council told Mrs X in February 2026, that it was going to apply to the County Court for an order of recovery of outstanding fees and charges at that point. This was after Mrs X had paid what she believed was the outstanding amount due.
9. I will not investigate this part of Mrs X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for her, at that time, to have appealed to the TEC, if she believed there had been a flaw in the charges the Council issued against the PCN. If successful, this would have reverted the process back to an earlier stage.
10. In June 2026, Mrs X then complained to the Council, saying it was at fault for not accepting her claims in good faith. She said it ought to have accepted she had paid all the charges that were due and should not have then used enforcement agents, to recover the remaining debt. Mrs X also said the conduct of the enforcement agents who visited her at home caused her distress.
11. The Council investigated Mrs X’s complaint. It set out the chronology of its actions in recovering the outstanding money it was due after the order of recovery, and how it calculated the charges. It said in the past it had waived PCN’s against Mrs X, as a ‘good will gesture’. The Council also investigated Mrs X complaint about the conduct of the EA’s who visited her property, including reviewing the EA body worn camera, which captured the interaction between then and Mrs X. It did not uphold her complaint.
12. Given its explanations for why it decided to use EA’s and that it has adequately investigated Mrs X’s allegations, further investigation of this complaint is unlikely to achieve a different outcome. Therefore, I will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because Mrs X could have used a right of appeal to dispute any charges and further investigation of the remainder of her complaint is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman