Summary: Mr C says the Council’s civil enforcement agent should not have sold his car to recover a debt because he needed it for his work and the car was of low value. He also says the Council should have considered the fact that he has a child with a medical condition. The Council was not at fault either for its own or its agent’s actions. Both acted lawfully in recovering the debt.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr C, says the Council and its civil enforcement agent were at fault for removing and selling his car to recover fees incurred because he says:
1. At the time that the enforcement agents recovered the car, he had already repaid the original debt, a parking penalty, and only the enforcement charges added on when his car was clamped remained owing.
2. His car was worth less than £1,350;
3. He needed it for his work; and
4. He has a sickly child who sometimes has to go to hospital in a town 40 miles away.
2. Mr C says he suffered injustice because it was harder to get to work and he was concerned he might not be able to take his child to hospital in an emergency.

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. 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)
5. 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

6. I spoke to Mr C who sent me documents. I wrote an enquiry letter to the Council. They sent me information from the enforcement agent. I considered the evidence and applied the relevant law and guidance.
7. I sent my draft decision to Mr C and the Council and requested comments. Neither had any objection. I made my final decision in the same terms.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

Penalty charge procedure

8. The Traffic Management Act 2004 governs the procedure which must be followed by councils issuing penalty charge notices (PCNs). Parking enforcement officers can issue a PCN if a vehicle is parked illegally.
9. If the owner does not respond to the PCN, councils will send a ‘notice to owner’ to the registered keeper of the vehicle. This will request payment of the fine. The letter includes a list of grounds of appeal. The owner has 21 days to appeal and must do so using the attached form and providing evidence.
10. If the owner does not do so, the Council will register the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. The TEC will issue an order for recovery to the owner. If the owner does not respond the Council will ask the TEC to issue a warrant of execution (‘a warrant’).

Civil enforcement

11. A council can then send the warrant to a certificated Enforcement Agent (‘agent’). The agent will send a Notice of Enforcement to the debtor. This will again request payment and warn that, if payment is not received, the agent may take further action. The agent may charge £75 for this letter.
12. If the debtor does not pay, the enforcement agent can make an enforcement visit. They may clamp a vehicle owned by the debtor. At this stage, they can charge a further £235 fee.
13. If the debtor does not pay the entire debt, the agent can remove a vehicle and impound it. It can charge a £110 fee at this stage.

Guidance to local authorities on civil enforcement

14. The Department for Transport has issued Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions. Chapter 11 deals with the use of enforcement agents. Among the guidance offered are the following:
• ‘Local authorities should remember that enforcement agents are acting on their behalf and that, ultimately they are responsible and accountable for the behaviour’.
• Enforcement agents must follow the code set out in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013.
• Local authorities should actively manage their contracts with enforcement agents ensuring they are aware of how the agents are operating.
• Agents and those who employ them must maintain high ethical standards.
• Local authorities should have a clear complaints procedure in place to address complaints regarding their enforcement agents’ performance.

Taking Control of Goods: National Standards

15. The Ministry of Justice has issued the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards which state:
1. Councils must be aware that enforcement agents act on their behalf and they are responsible and accountable for the agents acting on their behalf;
2. Councils must act proportionately when seeking to recover debt, taking into account debtors’ circumstances.

Tools of the trade

16. Agents cannot seize a car where:
• It has a blue badge or is a Motability vehicle;
• The debtor needs it for their job and it is worth less than £1,350; or
• It is the debtor’s home.
17. The Taking of Goods Regulations 2013, r.4(1)(a) says civil enforcement agents cannot seize goods, including vehicles which are ‘necessary for use personally be the debtor in the debtor’s employment, business, trade, profession, study or education, except that in any case the aggregate value of the items or equipment to which this exemption is applied shall not exceed £1.350.’
18. Mr C says his car is necessary for his work and was worth less than £1,350 and was therefore exempt.
19. The courts have decided that whether a car is ‘necessary for use personally by the debtor in the debtor’s employment…’ should be judged by whether the debtor would be able to continue to carry out their employment or trade without that particular vehicle.

Schedule 12, Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

20. This schedule covers ‘taking control of goods’. It authorises enforcement agents to recover not only the debt owing but also legitimate costs incurred during the process. These include their own fees.

What happened

21. In January 2018, Mr C received a PCN. He did not pay the reduced fine within 14 days and was therefore liable to pay the full fee of £105.
22. The Council applied to the court for a charge certificate. This incurred a fee of £8. The Council sent Mr C the charge certificate and a request for payment of £113 on 18 February 2018. Mr C did not pay.
23. In June 2018, having received a warrant from the Traffic Enforcement Centre, the Council appointed an enforcement agent, to recover the debt. The agent sent Mr C a compliance notice at his home address by post in late June 2018. The agent requested payment of £188 which was the £113 of the debt and court fee with a £75 compliance fee added.
24. Mr C did not respond. An agent visited Mr C’s property on 28 August. An agent came again on 13 September. At this stage, the agent clamped the car, added a further £235 enforcement fee and demanded payment.
25. On 18 September 2018, Mr C paid £105. This left £318 owing (£8 issue fee, £75 compliance fee, and £235 enforcement fee) outstanding.
26. On 4 October 2018. The agent phoned the Council to inform officers that the clamp had been forcefully removed from Mr C’s car. The agent asked the Council it could remove and sell the car to recover their debt. The Council agreed this was proportionate. The agent took no further action for six months.
27. In late April 2019, the agent removed Mr A’s car from his property. Council records show Mr C attended the pound and claimed he had paid the fine. An officer found £318 was still owing. She refused to authorise release of the car
28. Mr C phoned the agent saying his car had been removed illegally. The agent explained that money was still owing. It told him that, if he did not pay the remainder, the agent would auction the car the next week. In fact, it did not do so.
29. Two weeks later, the Citizen’s Advice Bureau sent a letter asking for the car’s release because Mr C needed the car for his work and Mr C had a child with a medical condition who might need to go to hospital.
30. In late May 2019, Mr C complained formally to the agent. The agent responded in mid-June explaining it was legally entitled to act as it had done.
31. In June 2018, Mr C’s employer also sent an email to Mr C which he forwarded to the agents saying Mr C needed the car for his work as he ‘transported children to essential educational requirements including providers and activities’.
32. The agent communicated this information to the Council. The Council decided that, in all the circumstances, sale was appropriate. The agent wrote to Mr C and said that it still intended to sell the vehicle if he did not pay.
33. In July 2019, the agent sold the car at auction for approximately £500. It returned approximately £35 to Mr C after paying costs and fees.

Was there fault causing injustice?

Original debt paid off

34. Mr C did not pay a parking fine he received in January 2018 until after the Council had applied for a warrant of execution and passed the matter to an enforcement agent and after the enforcement agent had clamped the car. By this time, a further £318 in costs had been added to the debt. These are legally valid fees and the Council was entitled to recover them. The agent asked the Council whether it would permit it to do so. The Council agreed. It was not at fault for doing so.

Vehicle needed for work

35. Mr C’s employer told the agent that he needed his car for work in June 2019 but, according to the law, a car is only ‘necessary’ for work if that particular car is required. The Council took the view that it was not and there is no evidence that the vehicle had been modified in any way for use in that way. This was a lawful decision the Council was entitled to make in the circumstances.
36. The Council considered the matter and decided the agent could sell the car. While the Council might have made a different decision, I cannot find fault with it for deciding as it did. This was a decision open to it on the facts.
37. Mr C says his car was worth less than £1,350 and that, therefore, the agent should not have seized it. However, the £1,350 limit only applies if the vehicle is ‘necessary’ for work so it does not apply in this case.
38. Neither is the fact that Mr C has a child who sometimes needs hospital treatment a relevant consideration. For a vehicle to be exempt, it must be a Motability or blue badge vehicle.

Council involvement in process

39. The Council was fully involved in the complaints making process throughout. Its officers communicated frequently with the agent’s staff and gave permission at key stages. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have found the Council was not at fault. I have closed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman