Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about enforcement agents acting on behalf of the Council and the Council’s initial response to his complaint. This is because any failure by the enforcement agents to seal the envelope containing their notice did not cause significant enough injustice, compliance with the law is, ultimately, a matter for the courts and it was not fault for the Council to tell Mr A to complain to the enforcement agents in the first instance.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr A, complained that enforcement agents acting on behalf of the Council and the Council failed to comply with the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards published by the Ministry of Justice. Mr A told us this has left him and his partner in fear of what the enforcement agents might do, it has affected his mental health and his partner was afraid to leave the house.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mr A provided, his complaint to the Council and the Council’s responses. I have given Mr A an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr A complains that

• The enforcement agents left a "removal notice" which was not sealed.
• The notice contained text contained text contrary to the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards.
• When he complained to the Council, the Council told him he should complain to the enforcement agents.

6. Both Mr A and the enforcement agents agree they left the notice in a self-seal envelope. The National Standards say enforcement agents should, so far as it is practical, avoid disclosing the purpose of their visit to a third party. So, if the debtor is not seen, the enforcement agents must leave the relevant documents at the address in a sealed envelope addressed to the debtor.
7. Our role is to investigate complaints of injustice caused by fault by a council or a body acting on its behalf. If the fault complained of has caused significant injustice, we can call on a council to provide a remedy such as a payment to the complainant. Mr A’s first complaint is that the enforcement agents failed to put the documents in a sealed envelope. It does not appear this issue has caused Mr A significant injustice. That is because there is no indication that, if the enforcement agents failed to seal the envelope, this of itself disclosed the purpose of their visit to a third party.
8. Mr A’s second complaint is the enforcement agents falsely implied or stated a particular course of action would ensue before it was possible to know whether such action would be permissible. In his complaint to the Council he said the enforcement agents’ action would clearly not be permissible because no goods had been secured and they had not obtained a controlled goods agreement. Mr A said the enforcement agents’ notice also included a threat that removal contractors would be present.
9. The council officer who replied to Mr A’s complaint initially, said he could not see anything in the notice which the legislation did not allow. In its final complaint response the Council said, in the absence of payment being made immediately, the removal notice made it clear the agent would return with the intention to remove goods under the powers of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 (the Regulations). The Council’s view is the enforcement agents have followed due process.
10. Paragraph 7 of the Regulations sets out the content the notice must contain. This includes the date and time by which the sum outstanding must be paid to prevent goods of the debtor being taken control of and sold and the debtor incurring additional costs. The Taking Control of Goods: National Standards does not replace the law.
11. Mr A may disagree with the Council on whether the enforcement notice complied with the law. But this is a legal matter which a court of law would be the appropriate body to rule on.
12. Mr A has complained that the Council said he should first complain to the enforcement agents. That was not fault. Councils may do this. The enforcement agents may be best placed to resolve complaints in the first instance. The Council did subsequently consider Mr A’s complaint at the next stage of its complaints process.
13. In its final response to Mr A’s complaint the Council said the enforcement agents had returned the case and their costs would no longer be due and payable.
14. Mr A wants the Council to take the bailiffs to court to remove their certificates, to apologise to him in writing and compensate him for the stress and time taken to deal with the matter. For the reasons given above, we would not have sufficient grounds to call on the Council to provide the remedy Mr A is seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because any failure by the enforcement agents to seal the envelope containing their notice did not cause significant enough injustice, compliance with the law is, ultimately, a matter for the courts and it was not fault for the Council to tell Mr A to complain to the enforcement agents in the first instance.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman