Summary: Mr Y complains enforcement agents acting for the Council disclosed information about a bus lane contravention penalty debt to third parties and then the Council failed to respond to his complaint about this. We find fault in the Council’s actions causing Mr Y avoidable embarrassment and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr Y, make a payment to him, remind enforcement agents about confidentiality and review its complaint handling.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains enforcement agents acting for the Council disclosed information about a bus lane contravention penalty debt to third parties, causing him embarrassment and upset. He also complains the Council has failed to respond to his complaint, adding frustration to the original emotional impact.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
6. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
7. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered all the information provided by Mr Y about the complaint.
9. I made written enquiries of the Council and took account of all the evidence and comments received.
10. I also referred to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
11. I gave the Council and Mr Y the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

12. Bus Lane contraventions are enforced in Greater London under the London Local Authorities Act 1996.
13. A council will issue a Penalty Charge Notice if it believes someone has contravened a bus lane. It will then issue an Enforcement Notice and Charge Certificate. It can then register the debt in Court and then use Enforcement Agents (also called bailiffs) to recover its debt.
14. We consider the actions of enforcement agents collecting a council’s debt on its behalf as if they were the actions of the council.
15. Government has produced standards for enforcement agents in “Taking Control of Goods: National Standards”. The standards are not legally binding but we expect councils and their agents to follow such guidance or explain why they will not do so in certain circumstances.
16. This includes standards for conduct and professionalism. This guidance says that creditors (the Council here) are responsible and accountable for the enforcement agents acting on their behalf. Enforcement agents should uphold strict confidentiality and comply with data protection legislation. Agents are entitled to check someone’s whereabouts with neighbours but should do so without disclosing confidential information. They should, so far as is practical, avoid disclosing the purpose of their visit to anyone other than the debtor. Enforcement agents also “must not act in a way likely to be publicly embarrassing to the debtor, either deliberately or negligently (…through lack of care)”.

What happened

17. Council cameras observed Mr Y’s car in a bus lane in November 2017. The Council got contact details for the registered keeper, Mr Y’s company, from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) in November 2017. It served a PCN at the end of November.
18. The Council sent the registered keeper an enforcement notice in January 2018. It then sent the registered keeper a Charge Certificate by post in the first week of February 2018. Mr Y updated his address with the DVLA in the second week of February.
19. Mr Y did not pay the penalty and did not seek to appeal the notice. The Council issued an Order for recovery of the unpaid penalty charge in March 2018. A warrant of execution was issued in April. An enforcement agent tried to recover the debt on the Council’s behalf in June. It clamped Mr Y’s car at his business address.
20. Mr Y was then emailed by his former letting agent, forwarding an email they had received from his former neighbour. The email from the former neighbour said a bailiff had been to the address looking for Mr Y. It said the agent had told a neighbour that Mr Y’s vehicle had been clamped and that Mr Y owed over £500. The neighbour provided contact details for the enforcement agent within the email. The letting agent then sent this email on to Mr Y the following day. Mr Y contacted the agent and paid the fine in full.
21. Mr Y then, through his representative (Citizens Advice), complained to the Council by letter in July about the enforcement agent’s disclosure to his former neighbour. The letter was logged as being sent by post. It included copies of the emails from the former letting agent and landlord. As no response was received, the representative sent the Council a further copy of the complaint in September, chasing a response to it. This further letter was also logged as being sent by post on the representative’s records. No further response was received by Mr Y or his representative from the Council.
22. Replying to my enquiries, the Council said the enforcement agent had “no recollection of disclosing any information to a 3rd party”. The Council said it had not responded to Mr Y’s complaint, as it said the Council’s parking team had not received either of the two complaint letters sent by Mr Y’s representative.

Analysis

23. There was no fault by the Council in issuing the PCN and in its recovery of the charge.
24. The email from Mr Y’s former letting agent refers to the bailiff telling the neighbour that Mr Y owed £500 and that his car had been clamped. There was no reason the neighbour or letting agent should have been able to guess this figure. The amount Mr Y owed at this stage was just over £513. Given the close similarity between the figures, on the balance of probabilities it is more likely the agent did tell the neighbour the amount owed on the vehicle. Bailiffs should adopt strict confidentiality. They should not avoidably disclose personal information to third parties. There was no good reason for the agent to tell the neighbour how much Mr Y owed. This was fault.
25. Mr Y has said the breach of his confidentiality has upset him. He is concerned his reputation may have been damaged as a result. The recovery of debts by clamping a car is, inevitably, a visible act and almost always results in others being aware of the action. However, the fault caused Mr Y avoidable, additional distress.
26. I have seen the two complaint letters sent by Mr Y’s representative and its logs showing these letters were sent. They were correctly addressed to the appropriate Council department. The Council has said its parking team did not receive these letters and it was unaware of the complaint. The balance of probabilities suggests that as the letters were correctly addressed, they would have been delivered to that address, particularly as they were sent two months apart.
27. As the letters were correctly addressed and posted I consider that, on balance they were likely to have been delivered. The Council is therefore at fault for not acting on them. This resulted in the parking team not replying to the complaint.
28. The Ombudsman expects councils to have easily accessible complaints procedures and an effective recording of complaints to ensure improvements can be made.
29. Here, the complaints process could not be easily accessed as despite two correctly addressed letters, the complaint was not dealt with. Consequently, I have found fault in the Council’s failure to ensure their complaints could easily and reliably be received, recorded and responded to.
30. The Council’s lack of response to his Mr Y’s complaints caused Mr Y annoyance and frustration. It also meant he had to approach the Ombudsman to have his complaint considered.

Agreed action

31. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault identified by this investigation, the Council has agreed that it will, within four weeks of the date of my final decision on this complaint:

• Apologise to Mr Y for its debt recovery agent inappropriately disclosing the value of the debt to his neighbour; and
• Apologise for failing to respond to Mr Y’s complaint letters
• Pay Mr Y £100 to acknowledge the frustration and time in having to pursue his complaint to the Ombudsman, and the embarrassment caused by the enforcement agent’s disclosure of his information to third parties.

32. To avoid reoccurrence of this fault the Council has agreed that within three months it will remind its enforcement agents of the need to protect confidentiality and avoid disclosing information to third parties.
33. The Council has also agreed that within three months it will review its system for receiving, recognising and recording complaints about parking to ensure complaints are dealt with by the appropriate team.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr Y’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr Y. The Council has agreed action to remedy that injustice and prevent its reoccurrence.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman