Summary: Miss X complains the Council wrongly instructed enforcement agents to recover from her a debt associated with a penalty charge notice (PCN). The first she knew of the action was when an enforcement agent arrived at her home and asked for payment of £383 which she made. There was fault by the Council in making Miss X the liable person for the PCN debt and in how it dealt with her contacts. The Council will make a payment to Miss X to provide a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council wrongly instructed enforcement agents to recover from her debt associated with a penalty charge notice (PCN). The first she knew of the action was when an enforcement agent arrived at her home and asked for payment of £383 which she made. Miss X was distressed by the visit by the enforcement agent and when she complained to the Council she was referred back to the enforcement agents.

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. 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

4. I considered the complaint and spoke to Miss X. I asked the Council for its comments on the complaint and additional information. I sent a copy of a draft of this statement to Miss X and the Council and invited their comments

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss X drives a car provided by her employer which in turn is owned by a lease company. On 2 July 2017 the Council served a PCN on her car for a parking contravention. To pay at the discounted rate of £35 Miss X needed to pay by 17 July. The Council banked her payment on 2 August. Miss X says she paid on 3 July.
6. As the Council considered the payment was too late for the discounted rate this meant there was an outstanding liability of £35. The Council pursued this in the normal way by writing to the Driver Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) for details of the registered keeper. This was the lease company. When the lease company received the notification it wrote to the Council asking it transfer the liability to the company leasing the vehicle (Miss X’s employer).
7. The Council proceeded with recovery action against the company. In November 2017 the Council sent the court order for recovery of the unpaid debt to the company.
8. Miss X then contacted the Council saying she had paid on time so wouldn’t be paying the further £35 claimed by the Council. The Council wrote to Miss X saying as she was not the registered keeper it could not accept any representations from her. Miss X did not receive that letter. The Council then wrongly recorded her as the registered keeper on its records.
9. Ten months later the Council passed the warrant it had obtained through the courts to enforcement agents. An agent visited Miss X. Miss X paid £383 which was the sum outstanding made up of the original debt of £35 plus costs associated with the recovery action, court costs and the bailiff charges.
10. Miss X complained to the Council. The Council told her to contact the enforcement agents.

The action against Miss X

11. Miss X believes she paid the reduced amount within the time. Miss X’s bank statement shows when the cheque was cashed which is after the cut-off date for paying at the reduced rate. But there is no evidence to show when it was posted so I cannot come to any conclusion on this point.
12. The Council has accepted it was wrong to make Miss X the liable person when she was not the registered keeper of the vehicle and it had not taken recovery action against her.

Conduct of the enforcement agent

13. Miss X’s recall of the visit was that the enforcement agent arrived at her home early one morning. She did not answer the door but saw him looking round her car so went out to speak to him. He said he was there to collect the amount which was due because she had not attended court. He entered the property and turned off his body camera. He then referred to someone who lived nearby who he said he was usually in the area to recover debts from. He said if Miss X paid the debt then there was an easy way to challenge it and for her to get the money back. He said if she did not pay then he would seize goods.
14. The enforcement agent says he could vaguely remember knocking on the door and made contact with an adult female. He explained why he was there and was invited in – he thinks Miss X said that she had appealed the ticket, he explained that he does not deal with appeals and advised there was no note of this on the system. He suggested the customer make payment and if her appeal was successful then she would get a refund in full and explained the enforcement process if she declined payment.
15. The enforcement agents have a records retention policy of 45 days for body camera footage. So it no longer has the footage as there had been no request to retain it .
16. I cannot come to any conclusions about the actions of the enforcement agent as there is a difference of view between Miss X and the enforcement agent and no independent evidence.

The Council’s response to the complaint

17. Miss X complained to the Council immediately after the enforcement agent visit in December 2018. The Council replied saying the PCN had been processed correctly, that there was now no right of appeal and referred her to the enforcement agents. The Council has commented that this was in accordance with the PCN debt recovery process as Miss X said she wished to appeal.
18. It is clear from the content of the email that Miss X is raising concerns with the whole process. The response says the Council has investigated the history of the case and is satisfied it has processed it correctly. When Miss X complained to the Ombudsman and we contacted the Council and it realised immediately there had been a mistake. I consider that had the Council looked into this properly when Miss X complained in November 2018 it should have realised at that point what had gone wrong.

Injustice and remedy

19. Miss X has had a refund of the money she paid including the original £35 for the contravention. I have considered whether further remedy is appropriate. The Council’s fault in wrongly attributing the debt to her meant that enforcement agents proceeded with recovery action against her. She did not receive the enforcement letter sent at the beginning of November 2018 by the enforcement agents. The Council has commented this is because the address given by Miss X in her email in December 2017 was slightly wrong. Miss X did not provide her home address in that email. Moreover the only error is that the road name is repeated, the post code and house number are correct. And I note Miss X received the Council’s letter of November 2018 which used the same address. I cannot, therefore, say why Miss X did not receive the enforcement letter but it was not because of any error on her part.
20. I therefore consider the unexpected visit by the enforcement agent was solely attributable to the Council’s error in making Miss X liable. I, therefore, consider the Council should pay Miss X £300 for the distress caused to her by the visit. This is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Agreed action

21. The Council will pay Miss X £300 within one month of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

22. There was fault by the Council in making Miss X the liable person for the PCN debt and in how it dealt with her contacts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman