Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an enforcement agency inappropriately clamping his car despite knowing it was under a finance agreement and for ignoring his vulnerabilities. This is because the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy for the fault accepted. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about an enforcement agent inappropriately clamping his car despite knowing it was under a finance agreement. He also complains the enforcement agency ignored his vulnerabilities.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council passed a debt to an enforcement agency in 2023. In January 2024, Mr X contacted the enforcement agency’s welfare team to request setting up a payment arrangement of £15 a month to clear his debt. Mr X detailed his income and expenditure and advised of all the debts he was paying to other debtors. No other information regarding any vulnerabilities were provided. The enforcement agency agreed to the proposed payment plan.
7. In June 2024, Mr X failed to make the arranged payment and so the payment arrangement had failed. The enforcement agency emailed Mr X to advise him of this and asked him to contact to discuss. The email also warned that enforcement action could take place. Mr X failed to contact the enforcement agency.
8. In December 2024, an enforcement agent visited Mr X at his property. There is body worn video footage of this visit, which I have reviewed. The footage showed a discussion between the enforcement agent and Mr X in relation to the car. Mr X confirmed the car was on finance, but the enforcement agent advised the rules had changed and the car could be clamped. The enforcement agent then called the office to seek clarification and was told he could clamp the car while the finance company would be contacted to seek permission for the car to be removed. Mr X also repeated several times he would not be paying the debt.
9. The agent then placed a notice of immobilisation on Mr X’s car. However, a physical clamp was not placed on the car.
10. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the enforcement agency acknowledged that Mr X being told his car could be clamped will have caused distress. It also accepted the agent failed to clarify that it was not legislation that had changed in relation to clamping cars on finances, but internal processes. To recognise this, the enforcement agency agreed to remove the enforcement fees of £235 and confirmed the matter had been referred to the agent’s manager for review and additional training.
11. I recognise the enforcement agent did not physically clamp Mr X’s car. However, given the context of the agent’s discussion with Mr X, his request for clarification the car could be clamped, and the placing of the notice of immobilisation on the car, I am satisfied the agent’s intention was to clamp Mr X’s car.
12. However, an investigation is not proportionate because the enforcement agency has already provided an appropriate remedy to recognise the distress caused by this and an investigation by us would not lead to any further recommendations.
13. An investigation is also not justified as we are not likely to find fault with the enforcement agency’s decision to complete an enforcement visit. This is because Mr X had failed to keep to the agreed payment arrangement and the enforcement agency had given him appropriate warning that enforcement action could take place. Further, as there is no evidence to support Mr X had provided evidence to either the Council or the enforcement agency of any vulnerabilities, we are not likely to find fault for his vulnerabilities being ignored.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy for the fault accepted. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman