The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Penalty Charge Notice. This is because Miss X has not suffered a direct injustice and further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.
The complaint
Miss X was travelling to a medical emergency when she accidentally drove through a pedestrian‑only zone. The Council then issued her a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). She says she appealed the PCN, but the Council failed to process her appeal, later claiming it never received one, and then escalated the charge. Miss X says this caused significant stress, especially during her pregnancy, and she asks the Council to accept its error, correct its process, and cancel the PCN.
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 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: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In September 2025 Miss X drove through a pedestrian‑only zone on the way to a medical emergency.
The Council issued a PCN to the vehicle’s registered keeper, who was Miss X’s relative.
Miss X filed an appeal to the Council as she was driving the car at the time. The Council rejected her representations because she was not the registered keeper and no transfer of liability had been made.
The Council said the registered keeper never submitted a formal challenge, so it progressed the case through the statutory process.
After Miss X’s relative later provided authorisation, the Council still could not consider Miss X’s representations without a formal transfer of liability. Which was never done.
The Council said the PCN has now been paid, at the discounted rate and the case has been closed.
We will not investigate this complaint as Miss X is not the registered keeper, she had no liability for the PCN and therefore suffered no direct injustice.
The Council’s decision to refuse representations from a third party without a valid transfer of liability, aligns with the statutory process, which requires challenges to come from the registered keeper. Therefore, further investigation would be unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Councils actions.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint as Miss X has not suffered a direct injustice and further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Councils actions.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman