Summary: Mrs C complains about the behaviour of a bailiff acting on the Council’s behalf during a visit to her home to collect a parking debt which she says caused unnecessary upset to her and her family and has affected their health. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mrs C’s potential vulnerability and subsequent complaint. The Ombudsman considers the agreed action of an apology, payment of £100 and confirmation of training about how to deal with potential vulnerable debtors is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs C, complains about the behaviour of an enforcement officer acting on the Council’s behalf during a visit to her home in relation to the collection of a parking debt. Mrs C says the visit caused unnecessary upset to her and her family and has affected their health.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. London Tribunals (previously known as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for London.
6. 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

7. Although Mrs C has not complained to the Ombudsman about her liability for the PCN I should make clear such a complaint would be caught by the restriction outlined at paragraphs 4 and 5 above. The scope of my investigation is limited to the conduct of the bailiff’s visit on 7 January 2019 and the Council’s subsequent actions.
8. I read the papers provided by Mrs C and discussed the complaint with her. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Mrs C. I have explained my draft decision to Mrs C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background and relevant legislation

9. The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 (“the Regulations”) set out that a bailiff may enter relevant premises to search for and take control of goods.
10. The Ministry of Justice has published the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards (“the Standards”). This sets out the standards bailiffs and creditors should comply with when taking enforcement action. The Standards say that creditors are ultimately responsible and accountable for bailiffs acting on their behalf. Both creditors and bailiffs have a role ensuring the vulnerable and socially excluded are protected. They should act proportionately when seeking to recover debt, considering debtors’ circumstances. If a debtor is identified as vulnerable, creditors should be prepared to take control of the case at any time, if necessary. The bailiff has a duty to contact the creditor and report the circumstances in situations where there is evidence of a potential cause for concern.
11. Mrs C received a penalty charge notice (PCN) on 31 October 2017 for parking in a permit zone without displaying a valid permit. The PCN charge was £130.
12. Mrs C’s details were obtained from the DVLA and a Notice to Owner dated 1 December 2017 was sent to Mrs C. A Charge Certificate was sent on 5 January 2018 as the PCN charge now increased to £195. A Notice of Debt Registration requiring payment by 8 March 2018 was subsequently on 13 February with the charge now £203. A warrant was issued by the court on 22 March and the Council passed the matter to the bailiff company to recover the debt. A Statutory Notice of Enforcement was sent to Mrs C on 26 March 2018. As the debt remained unpaid the matter progressed to the enforcement stage which involved a visit by a bailiff to the property.

Key events

13. A bailiff visited Mrs C’s property on 7 January 2019.
14. Mrs C complained to the bailiff company in January about the conduct of the bailiff. The company provided a response to Mrs C dated 24 January which did not uphold her complaint.
15. Mrs C complained to the Council in March 2019 about the actions of the bailiff during the visit to her property. She made specific allegations about advising the bailiff there were vulnerable people in the property.
16. The Council responded at the first stage of its complaint procedure in March and treated the complaint as a challenge to the PCN as there was a statutory process available. The Council noted Mrs C had received a response from the bailiff company and stated it could not help further. This failure to properly address Mrs C’s initial complaint is fault although I note she did subsequently receive a response which addressed her concerns.
17. The Council provided a further response in April which did address Mrs C’s complaint but which found no concerns with the bailiff’s conduct.
18. Mrs C complained again to the bailiff company in June 2019. The company accepted the enforcement agent’s actions appeared to be unsupportive to someone potentially vulnerable; and that inappropriate comments were made by the enforcement agent that were out of earshot and in the heat of the moment and upheld the complaint.  The bailiff company also advised the Council that before this visit a previous agent had been made aware by Mrs C of her circumstances and vulnerability in the household although no supporting evidence was provided.
19. The company confirmed the bailiff would retake the company’s vulnerability course and review the body camera footage with his line manager. The company also paid Mrs C £235 which was the enforcement fee for the visit and related to an associated account held by the company for a separate local authority.

My consideration

20. I have reviewed the body camera footage provided for this visit. The bailiff knocks on the front door which is answered by a young person. The bailiff asks to speak to their Mum or Dad and is told someone will be right down. Mrs C opens an upstairs window and speaks to the bailiff. Some of Mrs C’s audio is not completely clear here due to the distance. However, she says she is not well, has disabled children in the house and has recently lost her mother. The bailiff enters the closed door of the property. A man comes down the stairs facing the front door shouting at the bailiff and pushes him back out of the door. The bailiff calls the police who subsequently attend. The bailiff re-enters the property later and, at Mrs C’s request, turns off his camera. The police remain present.
21. Bailiffs have the power to enter and re-enter any premises which they reasonably believe the debtor usually lives at or carries on a business from. Entry to premises should be by the normal means of entry and should be peaceable. However, a bailiff may not take control of goods, make a controlled goods arrangement, or re-enter premises if the debtor is a child or the only person on the premises is a child or vulnerable person. If the debtor is vulnerable the enforcement fee is not recoverable until the bailiff has, before taking goods into control, allowed the debtor an adequate opportunity to get assistance and advice. ‘Vulnerable’ is not defined in the relevant legislation or regulations.
22. The Ombudsman cannot decide if someone is vulnerable which would be a matter for the courts. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the process followed by the bailiff company acting for the Council to decide if someone may be vulnerable.
23. If a bailiff finds a debtor may be vulnerable, they should let the local authority know. The bailiff company has already accepted it was aware from a previous visit of the potential vulnerability of this household before its January 2019 visit. It does not appear the bailiff company advised the Council or its new bailiff of these concerns at the time. Failure to do so is fault.
24. I am also concerned that no advice was sought by the bailiff before proceeding to enter the property after Mrs C had advised him of her circumstances and those relating to her family. This would have allowed the information from a previous visit to be relayed and proper consideration of whether Mrs C should be treated as vulnerable. There is no evidence of such consideration which is further fault.
25. The Council in its initial complaint response did not directly address Mrs C’s complaint about the conduct of the bailiff. This is fault. Although the Council subsequently did address the complaint it did not identify the above faults. The bailiff company subsequently accepted some fault directly to Mrs C but did not advise the Council it had identified any failings in the conduct of its bailiff.
26. Although the bailiff company’s actions of removing the enforcement fee for the visit and arranging refresher training for its bailiff go some way to providing a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs C and her family, I consider a further remedy is required.

Agreed action

27. The Council has agreed the following actions to provide a suitable remedy:
1. to write to Mrs C to apologise for the faults identified above within one month of my final decision;
2. pay Mrs C £100 in recognition of the distress caused and her time and trouble within one month of my final decision;
3. issue a reminder to staff dealing with complaints to ensure complaints about the conduct of bailiff’s acting on the Council’s behalf are responded to under the Council’s complaint procedure within one month of my final decision;
4. provide details of the date and content of the refresher training provided to the bailiff within one month of my final decision; and
5. review the training provided to bailiffs acting on its behalf about vulnerable debtors and reach a view if this is enough to ensure good practice and provide details of the review and outcome to the Ombudsman within three months of my final decision.
28. In responding to an earlier draft of this statement, the Council also confirmed it had recalled the warrant from its enforcement agent and cancelled the PCN. The Ombudsman welcomes this action.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation. I have found evidence of fault causing injustice but consider the agreed actions above are enough to provide a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman