Summary: Mr X complains the Council was wrong to take enforcement action which resulted in the sale of his taxi as the penalty charge notice should never have been issued. Mr X was entitled to be in the bus lane as his vehicle is a taxi but the Council could not have known this when it issued the penalty charge notice. There is no evidence of fault in the actions of the Council or the enforcement agents acting on its behalf.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council was wrong to take enforcement action which resulted in his taxi being removed as it should never had issued the penalty charge notice.
2. Mr X says his vehicle was removed and sold and he is now without a means to earn a living as a taxi driver.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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’. 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)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Cameras saw Mr X’s vehicle stopped in a bus lane on 22 December 2018. The Council sent Mr X a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on 27 December. The PCN said £110 is payable but if paid within 21 days this would be reduced to £55. Mr X says he did not receive this notice.
7. On 30 January 2019, because the Council had not received any payment, the Council sent Mr X a Charge Certificate. It explained that a further 50% surcharge had been added and Mr X now owed £165. It said he should pay this within 14 days. It further explained that if payment was not received the Council could apply to the county court to register the charge certificate which could result in further charges and or the instruction of enforcement agents to recover the debt.
8. The Council sent Mr X an order recovery notice on 22 February 201. Mr X says he never received this.
9. Mr X telephoned the Council on 7 March. He says he spoke to an officer about the PCN. He says he did not receive the initial PCN and would like to make representations. Mr X says the officer told him the case was with the Northampton County Court and he must wait for an order of recovery from the court.
10. The Council obtained a warrant on 8 April and passed this to enforcement agents to recover the debt on its behalf. The Enforcement Agents wrote to Mr X on 9 April. The Notice of Enforcement stated a £75 compliance fee had been added and Mr X now owed £248.
11. The Enforcement Agents acting for the Council visited Mr X’s property on 9 May and left a control of goods letter. This letter said if Mr X did not make contact immediately, the enforcement agent would return and remove goods. It stated this would incur further fees of £110.
12. The Council gave the enforcement agents authority to proceed with their enforcement action. An Enforcement Agent visited Mr X’s property on 13 May. The information I have seen suggests the officer arrived before 7 am. He clamped Mr X’s vehicle and place a notice warning of immobilisation on the vehicle. The Enforcement Agent provided paper work entitled “notice after entry or taking control of goods (on a highway) and inventory of goods taken into control.
13. The notice provided gives details of the vehicle that had been clamped, the enforcement agent’s name, refence number and telephone number. It detailed the costs incurred so far, including the enforcement costs and that Mr X had until 08:48 am to pay the outstanding amount and avoid the goods being removed.
14. Mr X did not pay the amount. He did contact the Council who told him he had to deal with the enforcement agents. After waiting the required two hours, the enforcement agents arranged a tow truck and Mr X’s vehicle was removed.
15. In response to my enquiries, the Council said after removing the vehicle the Enforcement Agent left a Notice that goods have been removed. I have not been provided with a copy of photograph of this notice.
16. On 14 May the Enforcement Agent provided a Notice of Sale. This stated the vehicle may be sold because Mr X had not paid the sum outstanding. It said the total amount outstanding was now £593 due to the addition of the enforcement stage fee and sale stage fee. It said the sale would take place on 29 May on Ebay. The notice advised Mr X that he had until 3 pm on 28 May to pay the amount owed and avoid the vehicle being sold. The notice included a vehicle valuation of £1500.
17. The Enforcement Agent undertook a valuation of the car using a HPI check. This indicated the value of the vehicle in average condition was £2,225.
18. Mr X contacted the Enforcement Agents by email on 15 May. He said the Council had advised him to make contact. Mr X said he was making contact about his wrongly seized vehicle. He said the Traffic Enforcement Centre had asked the Council to hold further action. Mr X requested the immediate release of his vehicle.
19. The Enforcement Agent responded the next day saying the Council had advised it an out of time appeal had been submitted. It confirmed a hold had been put in place pending the outcome of the appeal. It said the vehicle would not be released unless the Council discharged the warrant or his appeal was successful.
20. The Traffic Enforcement Centre denied Mr X’s out of time appeal. Mr X made no attempts to pay the fine and so his vehicle was sold.

Analysis

21. Mr X complains the Council was wrong to take enforcement action which resulted in his taxi being removed as it should never have issued the PCN.
22. The Council issued the PCN because Mr X’s vehicle was seen on ANPR cameras stopping in a bus lane. The Council has provided copies of the photographs taken by the ANPR cameras. These show his vehicle stopped in the bus lane. There are no markings on the vehicle and visible in the photographs which indicate the vehicle is a taxi.
23. I find no fault in the Council’s decision to issue the PCN. It was not obvious the vehicle was a taxi from the photographs taken and I would not expect a council to check before issuing a PCN. I cannot comment on why Mr X did not receive the PCN and I cannot undertake any further investigation to clarify this as I cannot investigate the postal system.
24. Mr X telephoned the Council on 7 March to query the PCN. I therefore have to conclude he had received notification in the post from the Council about it. I do not know which notice Mr X received as he has not been specific. Mr X did not take any further action to challenge the PCN and additional charges until after the vehicle was removed in May. It seems to me that if Mr X had taken action sooner the outcome may have been different.
25. Having carefully considered the actions of the enforcement agent, I am satisfied there is no fault in the actions to remove the car. The enforcement agent left the correct notifications and gave the correct information to Mr X about the action he could take to prevent the sale of his vehicle. I find no fault regarding the action of the enforcement agent and the sale of the vehicle.
26. Mr X is correct when he says the PCN should not have been issued because the vehicle is a taxi. However, Mr X did not follow the correct process to challenge the PCN. He could have paid the fine at the earliest opportunity to prevent further action and ultimately removal and sale of the vehicle. Mr X chose not to do this and only took action after the vehicle had been removed. The TEC did not allow his late application and I cannot go behind that decision. I find no fault in the Council’s initial actions to issue the PCN. I find no fault in the actions of the enforcement agent. While it is unfortunate Mr X’s vehicle was removed and sold when no infringement had occurred because his vehicle was a taxi, I am not persuaded this was as a direct result of any fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman