The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint, about a penalty charge notice issued by the Council, because the complainant has used his right of appeal, which means the substantive matter is outside of our jurisdiction. There is also no evidence to justify an investigation into the conduct of an enforcement agent, acting on the Council’s behalf. We have therefore discontinued our investigation.
The complaint
I will refer to the complainant as Mr G.
Mr G complains the Council issued him a penalty charge notice (PCN) for not displaying a Blue Badge properly, despite the fact it was not possible for him to have breached the Blue Badge parking regulations at the time. He says the Council did not consider this mitigating factor, and has not provided an explanation why. As a result, Mr G says he was visited and threatened by an enforcement agent, had to pay money to prevent the agent seizing his car, and that this experience traumatised his partner.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal or a government minister or started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended) The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered evidence provided by Mr G and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.
What I found
In June 2024 Mr G parked his car in a disabled parking bay in the Council’s area. He used a Blue Badge, permitting him to park there for up to three hours, but did not display a clock alongside the badge to show what time he had parked, which is a legal requirement. He therefore received a PCN, requiring him to pay £70.
Mr G made representations to the Council about the PCN. He acknowledged he had parked without showing a clock, but pointed out that parking restrictions had only come into force in that location two hours before the PCN was issued, meaning it was not yet possible for him to have parked there longer than the three hours permitted. The Council rejected Mr G’s representations, and so Mr G then submitted an appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) on the same grounds.
In September the adjudicator rejected Mr G’s appeal. They noted the logic of Mr G’s argument against the PCN, but said they could not uphold an appeal on ‘mitigating circumstances’ like these. However, the adjudicator observed that the Council could cancel a PCN for this reason.
The Council then begun the process of enforcing the PCN, but because Mr G did not pay it, it passed the debt to an enforcement agency. In September 2025, the enforcement agent visited Mr G’s home, and explained they could seize his car if he did not pay the PCN and the associated fees, which had now grown to £425. Mr G paid this money.
Mr G then complained to the Council. He again described the reason he believed he should not have received the PCN, said he could not understand why the PCN had been pursued, and accused the enforcement agent of being aggressive and threatening to ‘steal’ his car.
In response, the Council explained it was satisfied the PCN had been issued correctly, because it was not lawful for Mr G to have parked without displaying the clock. It also noted Mr G had been through the appeal process, and said it had referred the matter to an enforcement agency because he had not paid. The Council said the ‘mitigating circumstances’ presented by Mr G had been considered during the appeal and complaints process, and that it would not cancel the PCN or refund the money Mr G had paid.
Mr G then referred his complaint to the Ombudsman in November 2025.
Analysis The law says we cannot investigate any complaint, where the substantive matter has been the subject of an appeal to a court or tribunal.
In this case, Mr G appealed to the TPT on the basis of his claimed mitigating circumstances against the PCN. This means we have no legal jurisdiction to now consider the same matter.
In addition, the law says a person should approach us within 12 months of becoming aware of the issue they wish to complain about. The Council issued the PCN to Mr G in June 2024, but he did not complain to us until November 2025, meaning this complaint is late. Even if we had jurisdiction to consider it, therefore, for this reason we would be unlikely to accept it.
I note, in his complaint to the Council, Mr G also accused the enforcement agent of being aggressive and leaving his partner traumatised. The restrictions on our jurisdiction, concerning the appeal and timeliness, do not apply to this issue, and so it is in our jurisdiction. I will also note that, while the enforcement agent was not directly employed by the Council, they were acting on the Council’s behalf, and so it bears vicarious responsibility for their conduct.
However, I do not consider there is any evidence of fault here that would justify continued investigation. We recognise that being subject to debt enforcement is an unavoidably distressing experience. That Mr G and his partner felt distressed about it does not, therefore, indicate any misconduct on the part of the agent; and there is nothing else in Mr G’s complaint to suggest the agent did not behave in the proper manner. It is lawful for an enforcement agency to seize a person’s vehicle, in order to cover an unpaid PCN debt, and so this does not constitute theft, as Mr G contends.
Decision I have discontinued my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman