Summary: There was no fault by bailiffs acting for a council because they made appropriate checks about the identity of the registered keeper before clamping a car. There was also no fault by the bailiffs in the way it dealt with Ms C’s subsequent third party claim. Had she provided unredacted evidence sooner, the bailiffs would have released the car to her. The bailiffs deleted video footage after Ms C had made a valid data request. This was due to a one-off technical error, but was fault and caused avoidable frustration. The Council will apologise and pay Ms C £100 to reflect this.

The complaint

1. Ms C complains about London Borough of Barnet (the Council). She says the Council and its bailiffs did not follow proper procedures with respect to an unpaid Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). In particular:
1. The bailiffs did not confirm with the DVLA that she was the new owner of the car before seizing it
2. The agent arrived at 7.30 am instead of 9 am as agreed the day before
3. The bailiffs refused to disclose video evidence
4. The bailiffs and Council delayed in responding to her complaints, provided responses which were inadequate and failed to explain how she could get the car back
5. The bailiffs/ Council failed to place case on hold while she appealed to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC)
6. The agent did not show her a warrant
7. The bailiffs did not give seven days’ notice of their visit
8. The paperwork left on the car and the notice after entry were not completed fully
9. The agent was aggressive and assaulted her
10. The fees/ costs said to be owed were wrong.
2. Ms C says she suffered financial loss, loss of her car and physical injury. She seeks payments to reflect this.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated complaints (a) to (f). I have stopped investigating the remaining complaints for reasons given later in this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, for example, a firm of bailiffs carrying out enforcement for unpaid debts owed to a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
5. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
6. 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)
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 Ms C’s complaint to the Ombudsman and documents described later in this statement. I discussed the complaint with Ms C. The parties received two drafts of this statement and I took comments into account.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law, policy and guidance

9. The Council enforces parking restrictions and takes recovery action using procedures set out in the Traffic Management Act 2004 and associated Regulations. Councils and motorists must follow these procedures.
10. In law, the owner of a vehicle is responsible for any penalty charges regardless of who was driving at the time of the contravention. This is usually the person registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) as the keeper of the vehicle. Councils will initially send any formal documents using keeper details provided by the DVLA.
11. If a council considers a moving traffic offence has occurred from camera footage, they may issue a PCN, setting out a penalty charge. The PCN allows for an informal challenge to be made and for a 50% discount if paid within 14 days. If the penalty is not paid in this period, the council may send a Notice to Owner, which gives the registered keeper the option to pay the full penalty charge within 28 days or make formal representations. The PCN is sent by post and this acts as the Notice to Owner.
12. If the person does not pay or make representations within 28 days, the council can issue a charge certificate, which increases the penalty charge by 50%. If the penalty charge is then not paid within 14 days, the council can register the debt can be registered at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), adding costs. The council sends an order for recovery of the unpaid charge to the person informing them they must pay within 21 days or make a witness statement to the TEC. A witness statement can only be made on certain grounds relating to a flaw in the process of issuing the PCN. The applicant must state which ground they rely on and ask the TEC to revoke registration of the debt. The TEC has discretion to accept a late witness statement.
13. If the debt is still not paid and there has been no witness statement, the council may apply to the TEC for a warrant which it can pass to bailiffs to recover the amount owing. The bailiffs may also recover their own costs as laid down in regulations.
14. Bailiffs must follow the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 and Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. We summarise relevant paragraphs below:
• A bailiff must send a notice of enforcement to the debtor seven clear days before taking control of goods (visiting to take goods);
• A bailiff can only take control of goods at premises where the debtor usually resides or conducts their business or on the highway. If the goods are elsewhere the bailiff must ask the court for an order before taking control of goods;
• Bailiffs take control of goods by securing them on the premises, on the highway, removing them elsewhere or making a controlled goods agreement (an agreement which lets the debtor keep the goods if they promise not to dispose of them). Securing goods includes clamping a vehicle;
• Bailiffs can only take control of goods if they belong to the debtor;
• Bailiffs must leave two hours before removing a vehicle to storage and allow at least seven clear days before sale. Removed goods must be kept in a similar condition in which it was found and damage to the goods prevented. Sale may be by auction;
• An agent may not take control of goods before 6 am or after 9 pm;
• If someone else claims the goods taken into control are theirs, then they can apply to court. After receiving notice of the court application, the agent must not sell the goods or dispose of them until the claim is decided, unless the court directs otherwise.
15. Enforcement agents have access to DVLA records which show the registered keeper of the car – who may or may not be the owner. If an agent using automatic number plate recognition spots a vehicle on the highway, they can take control of it and after two hours can remove it. If the car does not belong to the debtor, once the third party has proved to the agent’s satisfaction that the car was not the debtor’s goods, then fees are not chargeable and it should not be removed.
16. The bailiffs’ agents wear a body camera to record enforcement visits. The bailiffs’ information policy says video evidence is retained for 45 days. If a person makes a request for video evidence, deletion is placed on hold until 30 days after the request is resolved.

17. The government’s website explains how to register a change of keeper with the DVLA. The seller will need to:
• Complete section three of the log book
• Fill in the new keeper slip and give it to the new keeper
• Send the V5C document to the DVLA

The DVLA aims to send out a new V5C within two to four weeks of getting the old V5C from the seller.

What happened

18. In May 2018, the Council issued a PCN to Mr D for stopping in a box junction. Mr D was the car’s registered keeper at the time.
19. The Council sent the PCN and Charge Certificate to Mr D. He did not reply and so it obtained a warrant of control from the TEC.
20. Ms C told us she bought the car from Mr D at the end of September 2018. She told us she found the car on ‘gum tree’ (a website where people advertise local goods for sale).
21. The Council passed the case to its bailiffs for enforcement. The bailiffs’ records show it checked the DVLA’s records on 9 October and they showed Mr D as the registered keeper. They sent Mr D a Notice of Enforcement. An enforcement agent located the car using automatic number plate recognition. And on 23 October, the day before the car was removed, the bailiffs did a check with a credit agency which showed the most recent change of owner was April 2015
22. An enforcement agent located the car and clamped it on 23 October. He fixed a Notice after Taking Control of Goods on the car’s windscreen. We have seen a photograph of this. It had Mr D’s name on it, but not his address. It set out the fees and charges owed, but not the details of the court order or enforcement power used.
23. The enforcement agent told us Mr D said he was Ms C’s husband when he carried out the visit to take control of the car. The Council told us it had information from the bailiffs on a warrant for another local authority which suggested Mr D lived at the same address as Ms C. The Council said these address details were on record for the other warrant. Ms C told us she did not know Mr D before she bought the car and she denied he was her husband or partner.
24. The enforcement agent told us:
• Ms C phoned him after he clamped the car, claiming to be the owner
• He told her to provide proof of ownership
• He offered to meet her at 6 am the following morning. She asked if they could meet at 9am and he said this was not possible due to work commitments.
• Ms C withheld her phone number. The call was not recorded as Ms C called his mobile.
25. The enforcement agent returned the following morning and removed the car. The police attended for part of the visit. We understand they left the scene and took no further action. Ms C told us she tried to show the agent proof of ownership but he went ahead and took the car.
26. At the end of October 2018, Ms C complained to the bailiffs about the issues she has raised with the Ombudsman. She also complained to the Council. She asked the bailiffs for the video footage of the agent’s visit. Ms C said in her complaint to the bailiffs that:
• She spoke to the agent on the evening before he attended to remove the car and they agreed to meet at 9 am the following day to resolve the issue
• She looked out of her window the next day at 7.50 am and saw the agent and a tow truck
• She went out on to the street, sat in her car and rolled down the window. The agent then took her car keys
• The agent physically assaulted her. She told him the car was in her name and not in the name of the person whose details had been left on the notice on the car
• The agent refused to look at her documents.
27. The bailiffs’ first complaint response said:
• The agent located the car using automatic number plate recognition. They checked the car was registered to Mr D and then clamped it. During this visit, a man who the agent understood to be Mr D, confirmed he owned the car
• Ms C phoned the agent later and said she owned the car and he advised her he would need to see evidence of this
• Where a third party claims it owns property, they need to provide evidence – the bill of sale, the V5C registration document and insurance. If this cannot be provided, the agent will clamp the car;
• The agent told Ms C she needed to provide the evidence above, but she did not and so he removed the car. She got into the car and refused to get out. The agent was concerned because the car was strapped and lifted slightly from the road. He removed the keys for safety. As he had already taken control of the car the previous day by clamping it, the agent acted within his rights
• The agent reported Ms C behaved aggressively trying to get the keys back, pushing, punching and grabbing him. The footage did not show an assault. The police attended and were satisfied the agent was acting in line with the warrant. The car was taken to storage
• It wrote to Mr D explaining what he needed to do to get the car back (pay in full) or the goods would eventually be sold by auction.
28. The Council’s first response to Ms C’s complaint said she needed to provide evidence of ownership and it had placed the case on hold for 28 days to enable her to do so.
29. Ms C was unhappy with the responses from the Council and the bailiffs and so complained to the bailiffs again. She said the agent refused to look at the V5C registration certificate (log book) and change of owner slip and had not checked with the DVLA about who owned the car before taking control of it. She asked for the agent’s body worn camera footage.
30. The bailiffs’ responded saying Ms C had not provided the evidence required to show she owned the car (insurance, third party questionnaire, photo ID, log book/new keeper’s supplement, invoice of purchase and proof of tax). The bailiffs said Ms C needed to supply photo ID for it to release the video footage.
31. The bailiffs’ records show Ms C emailed a copy of a certificate of motor insurance on 6 November. The insurance certificate was valid from 28 September 2018 until 30 July 2019. Ms C was the policy holder. She also emailed a handwritten sale note for the car.
32. The bailiffs emailed Ms C on 12 November to confirm it had received a copy of the V5C registration (log book). This showed Ms C as the registered keeper on 28 September. The bailiffs said she needed to provide insurance and a receipt. (although Ms C had already provided these, see previous paragraph.)
33. On 28 November, Ms C emailed the bailiffs again with the receipt and insurance. The bailiffs replied asking Ms C to complete a questionnaire and to provide the following:
• Insurance certificate
• Photo identification
• Log book/new keepers supplement
• Receipt/proof of purchase
• Proof of tax.
34. Ms C said the bailiffs’ requests for data were excessive and she had already provided what it had asked for. She said the bailiffs should have asked for all the documents it needed at the outset. She asked the bailiffs to decide on the ownership claim based on the information provided already.
35. The bailiffs’ replied saying Ms C had not provided all the information set out in paragraph 33 and so it had rejected her claim. It advised Ms C to submit a claim to the court and provide a copy of the application notice.
36. Ms C replied saying she had already provided the V5C registration certificate, receipt, proof of insurance and photo ID (her driving licence) and she had to apply to the DVLA for a SORN letter (statutory off-road notification) as the car was impounded.
37. The bailiffs’ records disclosed for this investigation include:
• The first page of the V5C registration certificate (which is not proof of ownership, but shows who is responsible for taxing the car). It was in Ms C’s name. The certificate said there were 3 former registered keepers
• A letter from DVLA confirmed Ms C made a statutory off-road notification (SORN) starting on 16 November 2018
• An internal note on 21 December saying Ms C still needed to provide full photo ID. She had provided her driving licence but the address and photo were obscured.
• Copies of Ms C’s driving licence with the photo obscured and a copy with a visible photo but other information obscured.
38. The bailiffs emailed Ms C in January. The email set out the outstanding documents it needed to consider her claim of ownership:
• Full copies of all pages of the V5C registration certificate
• Drivers licence with none of the details obscured
• Proof of valid road tax - as the vehicle was parked on the roadside at the time of removal, the SORN would have been invalid and the car would have needed to be insured
• Explanation of how payment was made as the receipt and questionnaire did not specify, proof of payment
• If payment was in cash, provide bank statements showing the withdrawal of funds to cover the purchase amount.
39. On 17 January, the bailiffs received from Ms C:
• Five pages of the V5C registration certificate, but with information obscured on most pages and
• Driving licence with details and picture obscured.
40. The bailiffs emailed Ms C saying it had rejected her claim because she had not provided full information. The email said:

“Dear Madam

On the 13thof December an email was sent requesting the following which forms part of the evidence required for us to make an informed decision on your third party claim: 

• Completed third party questionnaire
• Insurance certificate
• A copy of photo ID
• Logbook/New keepers supplement
• Receipt/invoice of purchase
• Proof of TAX on the vehicle.

You supplied us with the following:

• A certificate of motor insurance effective from 28/09/2018 to 30/07/2019
• A handwritten receipt

We rejected your claim based on the following:

• No Completed questionnaire
• No copy of photo ID
• No logbook/New keepers supplement
• No receipt/invoice of purchase
• No proof of TAX on the vehicle.

Only after our rejection did you supply us with the following:

• Part of the logbook (the full pages are required as they show dates that again we use to make an informed decision on your claim)
• ID – no signature displayed, no photo displayed, no full address displayed, no validity date displayed (Therefore we are unable to confirm the address given on the receipt previous provided, no proof that the ID is still valid, the name also differs to the name on the insurance certificate provided)
• Still no completed questionnaire or proof of tax on your vehicle was provided.

You were advised your claim was still rejected as you have still not provided the information requested.

On 6 January 2019, you provided the questionnaire in which not all information was provided, including no details of the form of payment, together with the following.

• Documentation from the DVLA with information obscured from view
• Drivers licence with information obscured.

On 9 January, you were asked to provide the following once again:

• Full copies of all pages of the logbook
• Drivers licence with none of the details obscured
• Proof of valid road tax - as the vehicle was parked on the roadside at the time of removal the SORN would have been invalid and the car would have needed to be insured.
• Please advise how payment was made as the receipt and your questionnaire does not specify, please also provide proof of payment, if paid in cash we would need to see bank statements showing the withdrawal of funds to cover the purchase amount.

On your response on the 17 January, none of the requested information was supplied.

So therefore we continue to reject your Third Party Claim on the basis that you have not supplied the info requested.”

41. Ms C complained to the bailiffs’ customer care team. It replied saying she needed to provide specific evidence and the documents she had provided to date had been edited or redacted and so could not be used to verify ownership. She still needed to provide:
• Full copies of all pages of the V5C;
• Drivers licence with none of the details obscured;
• Proof of valid road tax - as the vehicle was parked on the roadside at the time of removal the SORN would have been invalid and the car would have needed to be insured; and
• Information about how payment was made as the receipt and questionnaire did not specify; proof of payment; if cash, provide bank statements showing the withdrawal of funds to cover the purchase amount.
42. Ms C complained to us in January. Meantime, the Council provided a second response to her complaint. This said:
• It issued the PCN to Mr D who was the registered keeper, confirmed by the DVLA. The case passed through the usual stages and Mr D did not respond and so the court issued a warrant of control and the Council then passed the case to the bailiffs;
• The bailiffs checked with a credit agency and found the car had two previous keepers, with the latest change occurring in April 2015;
• A reported transfer from husband to wife would require robust proof else it would be easy to frustrate debt recovery. The Council would expect the DVLA to have been notified and insurance in the wife’s name prior to the car being clamped;
• Ms C needed to complete a form and provide ID and then the bailiffs would release the video footage;
• Ms C had supplied a copy of the V5 new keeper supplement which shows she became the keeper of the car on 28 September. To substantiate the third- party claim, she also needed to provide proof of insurance, the confirmation letter from the DVLA advising she was the keeper and evidence of purchase. The Council and the bailiffs had told her she had not provided this evidence and so it did not accept her claim of ownership.

Developments since Ms C’s complaint to the Ombudsman

43. The Council told us Ms C had filed an out of time witness statement/statutory declaration at the TEC in January and the Council’s contractors failed to oppose it. Ms C told me the TEC rejected her witness statement. She said she telephoned the TEC and was told that Mr D had also filed an out of time witness statement, but the TEC would not give her any more details.
44. Mr D also filed an out of time witness statement, although we have no documentary evidence of this because he is not a party to this complaint and the TEC did not send the Council a copy. The TEC sent the Council a copy of an order of 8 March naming Mr D as the respondent which revoked the order for recovery of the unpaid charge and cancelled the charge certificate. The court order advised Mr D to contact the Council. The Council wrote to Mr D to ask him to collect the car.
45. The Council told us Ms C sent the bailiffs a copy of her driving licence on 5 February showing her face and this was passed to the relevant team at the bailiffs dealing with data requests. The data request was not actioned due to a one off error and the video footage has been automatically deleted. The bailiffs retained other footage of the enforcement visits, which we have viewed but the footage does not include clips of Ms C. The bailiff’s data protection officer told me the footage of Ms C had been automatically deleted, even though Ms C had made a valid request for it.
46. Ms C has sent me unredacted copies of her V5C registration certificate (log book). This shows Ms C became the registered keeper on 28 September and has a date of 1 November 2018 on it which indicates the DVLA processed the certificate on 1 November. I asked Ms C to confirm the date she received the full log book. She failed to give a date, but said ‘both the DVLA and the police who attended confirmed it can take up to 6 weeks for the system to update.’
47. I asked the Council to explain what evidence it had that Mr D and Ms C lived at the same address. The Council told me the address ‘was identified through the bailiffs trace process as a potential linked address (five distinct active sources of data relating to Mr D were present at the time of the trace) on warrants issued by another authority. The address was authorised by the TEC.’

Comments from the Council and the bailiffs

48. The Council told us that since complaining to us, Ms C had provided the bailiffs with full photo identification and a complete unredacted logbook and so the bailiffs released the car to her. And Mr D accepted liability for the unpaid PCN and this closed the matter.
49. The bailiffs told us:
• data from the DVLA could not be accessed instantaneously but was an overnight process. It completed a DVLA check on receipt of a warrant and every three months thereafter.
• Credit checks are instantaneous and were done to establish change of ownership since the last DVLA check or of there were any other interests in the vehicle, like a finance company.
• The credit check company obtains regular UK wide data from the DVLA.
• Sometimes people removed clamps when a bailiff was not there and the vehicle disappeared. It carried out adequate ownership checks within the time constraints of securing a vehicle removal, balanced with the risk of the vehicle disappearing overnight if a further DVLA check was undertaken. Thereafter, there were appropriate procedures in place for third party claims where the relevant documentation could be supplied by the third party to validate the claim.
• It accepted it did not release the video footage to Ms C but what happened was a one off technical fault after a member of staff from the complaints team sent on the acceptable proof of identity by email to the data team. For unknown reasons, the data team did not receive the email and so the footage was automatically deleted. The email address was being checked regularly to minimise the risk of recurrence.

Was there fault and if so did this cause injustice?

Complaint a: The bailiffs did not confirm with the DVLA that Ms C was the new owner of the car before seizing it

50. The records show DVLA checks by the bailiff on 8 October confirmed Mr D was the registered keeper. The agent did a further check with a credit agency on the day he clamped the car and Mr D was still listed as the keeper. The bailiff explained they did not do a second check with the DVLA after locating the car because the way the DVLA operates is that a request made on one day gets a response the next and waiting 24 hours after submitting the check would increase the risk of a vehicle disappearing. There are no grounds for me to criticise the bailiffs procedures. And in any event, in this case, even if the agent had made a second DVLA check before taking control of the car, the DVLA’s records would still have had Mr D as the registered keeper because the registration certificate indicates the DVLA did not process the change of ownership to Ms C until 1 November and so Mr D would still have been on record as the car’s registered keeper.

Complaint b: The agent arrived at 7.30 am instead of 9 am as agreed the day before

51. The agent denied agreeing 7.30 am with Ms C and I make no finding on this point as it is one person’s word against another’s. There was no fault in visiting at 7.30 am in any event as the regulations allow for enforcement to take place between 6 am and 9 pm.

Complaint c: The agent did not show Ms C a warrant

52. There was no physical warrant, only an electronic version. And technically, there was no requirement to show Ms C the electronic warrant because she was not the debtor. There was no fault.

Complaint d: The bailiffs refused to disclose video evidence

53. The bailiffs’ policy is to require photo identification before releasing video footage. This is appropriate because video footage is sensitive personal information and so the bailiffs need to be sure the person requesting the information is the person in the footage. The Council told us the bailiffs had received a full (unobscured) copy of Ms C’s driving licence including her photo. But the bailiffs did not release the footage and deleted it. While I accept this was a mistake rather than a deliberate action, deleting the footage was not in line with its procedures and so was fault.
54. The failure to disclose the footage of the enforcement visit after Ms C had supplied satisfactory identification was fault which caused Ms C avoidable frustration and it also frustrated an independent investigation by this office into what documentation was shown on the day of the agent’s visit.

Complaint e: The bailiffs and Council delayed in responding to Ms C’s complaints, provided responses which were inadequate and failed to explain how she could get her car back

55. There were ongoing emails between Ms C and the bailiffs and I am satisfied the bailiffs responded fully and explained the information Ms C needed to provide to establish ownership of the car and why. When Ms C sent in incomplete or obscured documents, the bailiffs explained why it needed to see complete, unredacted documents. I am satisfied on the basis of the information I have seen that at the time Ms C was complaining and making a third-party claim, she failed to provide the unredacted evidence that the bailiffs reasonably required to be satisfied there had been a genuine sale. I do not consider the bailiffs made excessive data requests as they needed to be satisfied she was the owner before releasing the car to her. Ms C explained she redacted information for information security reasons. But there was no fault by the bailiffs in rejecting documents with redactions.

Complaint f: The bailiffs/ Council failed to place case on hold while she appealed to the TEC

56. The records show the case was placed on hold at Ms C’s request. There was no fault.

Agreed action

57. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf, it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with the actions of the bailiffs, my recommendations are for the Council.
58. I recommend the Council apologises for the bailiffs’ action in deleting the video footage and makes a symbolic payment of £100 to reflect Ms C’s avoidable frustration. It should do so within one month of this statement. The Council accepts this recommendation.
59. Ms C has now provided the bailiffs with the full evidence it needed to release the car to her. Had she provided the evidence sooner she would have had her car back. Ms C’s own actions contributed towards her car being retained.

Back to top

Final decision

60. There was no fault by bailiffs acting for a council because they made appropriate checks about the identity of the registered keeper before clamping a car. There was also no fault by the bailiffs in the way it dealt with Ms C’s subsequent third party claim. Had she provided unredacted evidence sooner, the bailiffs would have released the car to her. The bailiffs deleted video footage after Ms C had made a valid data request. This was a one off technical error, but was fault and caused avoidable frustration. The Council will apologise and pay Ms C £100 to reflect this.
61. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint I did not investigate

62. I stopped investigating some of Ms C’s complaints. Complaints (g) and (h) are about enforcement and debt procedures affecting Mr D as the debtor and so were complaints for him.
63. Complaint (i) is more appropriately dealt with by the police.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman