Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

Birmingham City Council

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Other Reference 25-001-841 Sector Transport And Highways Category Parking And Other Penalties Decided 22 June 2025

View Birmingham City Council scorecard

Full decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about parking penalty because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

The complaint

Mr Y complained the Council has pursued him for a Penalty Charge Notice for a parking contravention for a vehicle he no longer owns. He also complained that he did not receive the Notice to Owner until it was too late to appeal and feels the council ought to have contacted the DVLA to confirm the change of owner, rather than pursuing him for the penalty.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has 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 use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.

How I considered this complaint

I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

Mr Y has a right to appeal the PCN further to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal if he wishes.

The Traffic Penalty Tribunal can consider how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s response to the Notice to Owner, and whether it followed the correct process in considering any representations. If it finds that it did not consider Mr Y’s representations properly, it can then consider the issues Mr Y has raised as the reasons why the PCN is either invalid or should not be enforced against him. One of the grounds for appealing to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal is that a person did not own the vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred.

Usually, a person must make an appeal to the tribunal within 28 days of a Notice of Rejection to representations being issued. As this time will now have passed, Mr Y will need to approach the Traffic Enforcement Centre to seek permission to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal after the deadline. This can usually be done with forms available online.

The Traffic Penalty Tribunal and the Traffic Enforcement Centre is usually free in the initial stages and can make reasonable adjustments if necessary. I would therefore consider it reasonable for Mr Y to use this right of appeal. We will not investigate this complaint.

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving Birmingham City Council

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-003-130 Upheld
25-020-106 Other
25-020-802 Other
25-017-497 Other
24-023-024 Other
View all decisions for this organisation