Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to respond to her challenge or issue relevant documentation about a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains she challenged a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Council but did not receive a response. She also did not receive the ‘notice to owner’ and could not therefore appeal.

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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for parking contraventions and handling appeals against them. When a council issues a PCN the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal; appeals at this stage are known as ‘informal challenges’.
6. If the motorist submits an informal challenge to a PCN and the Council decides not to accept them, it will write to the motorist and explain why. If the motorist accepts the Council’s reasons they may pay the PCN; if not, they may wait for a ‘notice to owner’. This provides a further opportunity for the owner of the vehicle to pay the charge or make ‘formal representations’ against the PCN. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to London Tribunals.
7. We are not an appeal body and do not provide an alternative to London Tribunals to determine the validity of PCNs. We can however consider whether a council properly followed the process set out above in dealing with any challenges and escalating a PCN. I have therefore made enquiries of the Council and considered the evidence it provided in response.
8. In this case the evidence shows Mrs X challenged the PCN informally after receiving it. She said she had parked with a valid permit and provided a screenshot detailing the start and end date of the permit, which covered the time at which the Council issued the PCN.
9. The Council considered Mrs X’s challenge and responded to it, by email and post using Mrs X’s current address, on 30 September 2024. It explained that while Mrs X said she had a valid visitor voucher she had parked in a location where the voucher was not valid. It confirmed therefore that it had rejected Mrs X’s challenge and provided details of how to pay the penalty charge. It also explained that if she did not want to pay and instead wanted to appeal further, she could do so after the issue of the notice to owner.
10. The Council then sent the notice to owner, again to Mrs X’s current address, on 4 November 2024. Mrs X did not pay the PCN so the Council then issued a charge certificate. Mrs X received the charge certificate and paid the PCN to avoid further escalation.
11. I have no reason to doubt Mrs X’s claim that she did not receive the Council’s response to her representations or the notice to owner, but I have seen no evidence to show this was the result of any fault by the Council. I also see no basis for us to question its reasons for refusing Mrs X’s challenge. I cannot therefore uphold the complaint or find any reason for us to investigate the matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman