Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to take proper account of information she provided when it was pursuing a debt from someone claiming to live at her property. The Council initially failed to properly consider the information she provided. However, the majority of bailiff action was placed on hold. The Council apologised to Miss X for shortcomings in the way the Council dealt with her contacts. This was a reasonable response to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X rents out a property to tenants. She received parking penalty notices at her property in the name of an individual who had no connection with it. She says she made the Council aware the individual was using her address fraudulently. She complains the Council failed to take proper account of this, persisted in writing to her property and placed the account with bailiffs incorrectly. She says this put her to the time and trouble of visiting the property to collect correspondence and re-assure her tenants.

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 spoke to Miss X and discussed her complaint. I asked the Council for information and I considered its response to the complaint.
5. I sent a draft decision to Miss X and to the Council to enable both parties to comment. I considered the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

6. Miss X owns and rents out a property.
7. From June 2018 she began receiving penalty charge notices (PCNs) from the Council addressed to someone unknown to her (referred to in this statement as the ‘debtor’). The PCNs related to parking violations. After sending a PCN a council sends a “Notice to Owner” to the registered address for the vehicle involved. These were also sent to the debtor at Miss X’s property.
8. Miss X sent back several of the notices stating the debtor was not known at that address. Because the first PCN from June 2018 remained unpaid, the Council passed the debt onto bailiffs in November. The bailiffs sent a Notice of Enforcement to her property on 5 December.
9. Miss X called and spoke to the bailiffs on 6 December. She explained the debtor did not live at her property and never had; they appeared to be using her address fraudulently. She stated a search for the debtor on Companies House showed they had registered a company at her address. The debtor’s address had been updated and Companies House showed a new address which they may live at or work from.
10. Following the contact with bailiffs Miss X received a further PCN and several further Notice to Owner letters.
11. In March 2019 Miss X complained to the Council. She stated she had contacted the Council on several occasions to ask it to stop sending correspondence about the debtor to her property. She said when she spoke to someone in the parking team that day, they told her bailiffs would have to attend the property and her tenants would need to show them identification. This was to prove they were not the debtor. Miss X felt it was unreasonable that the Council continually harassed her and her tenants when she had explained the address was being used fraudulently. She pointed the Council to information on Companies House that may show where the debtor was actually living.
12. The Council’s initial response largely dismissed Miss X’s complaint. The Council stated bailiffs would need to attend to evidence that the person they were seeking was not resident at her property. It stated it could not discuss the debtor with her because of data protection regulations. In a later response to Miss X’s complaint the Council stated it could not be sure the information on the Companies House website was about the correct person. They reiterated that bailiffs would need evidence about who lived at the property. It set out the procedures it followed to chase up debts from PCNs. It explained they had to follow the statutory process.
13. While the Council was dealing with Miss X’s complaint, two further PCNs were escalated to bailiffs and the bailiffs automatically sent two further Notices of Enforcement.
14. In April, when the complaint was escalated, an officer talked to Miss X and she provided a copy of the tenancy showing the debtor did not live at her property. After some internal discussion, the Council provided this information to the bailiffs. The bailiffs confirmed they had conducted further checks and had a forwarding address for the debtor. They confirmed they would not pursue the debtor at Miss X’s address in future.
15. At the final stage of the Council’s investigation into Miss X’s complaint, the investigator noted the background events. They also acknowledged the process followed to recover debts. The investigator noted guidance exists which states the Council has a duty not to fetter their discretion and they should approach the exercise of discretion objectively. They noted there was a need for some flexibility in approach and a need to act proportionately, objectively and fairly.
16. The investigator stated that bailiffs had been able to trace another address for the debtor on 16 April and they had started to pursue enforcement action at that address. However, the investigation noted the bailiffs had conducted proper checks before writing to the debtor at Miss X’s property. They indicated the debtor did live there. She noted the bailiffs had placed a hold on action after speaking to Miss X in early December. However, it was unfortunate that further PCNs were referred to bailiffs and that Notices of Enforcement were issued automatically.
17. The investigator accepted the parking team could not be expected to pull back from recovery action on the uncorroborated word of individuals. However, the investigator felt overall, the information from Miss X provided genuine doubt about the correct address for the debtor. The investigator concluded the parking team should have shown more flexibility in the way they handled the case.
18. In its final response on the complaint the Council explained its findings. It thanked Miss X for providing details of her tenants. It recognised that in this instance officers had not given sufficient consideration to the information she presented. The Council apologised for having previously inferred that Miss X expected the Council to act on her emails alone and for not having prevented the additional PCNs being pursued through the bailiffs. It acknowledged that it needed to respond more flexibly in future and explained it had taken action to learn lessons from her complaint.

Analysis

19. The law allows the Council to take action to pursue a debt from an unpaid PCN. It is normal practice for the Council to carry out a check with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) to find out the registered address for a vehicle. The Council did this. When it did not receive payment it was entitled to take further action, including the use of bailiffs. So, the actions taken to recover the debt were not unusual and not inappropriate.
20. However, the Council did not respond fully to the issues Miss X raised when it first responded to her complaint. She backed up what she said with information that was helpful to finding the debtor. The failure to properly consider what Miss X said at the outset, was fault. The Council acknowledged it could have responded more flexibly, its response misrepresented what Miss X had asked it to do and it should have stopped some additional correspondence while it was considering the complaint. It apologised for the issues that it identified as part of the final stage of the complaint.
21. The Council also told Miss X that officers had discussed the approach it took and learned lessons for dealing with future incidents. I welcome the steps taken to ensure consideration is given to information it receives and a more flexible approach is taken in future.
22. Miss X explained that she incurred additional expenses as a result of the need to visit the property and re-assure tenants. However, the Council was entitled to send correspondence to the property given that it had been registered as the debtor’s address. It did this properly having carried out DVLA checks. That said, after Miss X had complained, it could have prevented some further correspondence from being sent while the complaint was being dealt with.
23. I recognise the situation must have been difficult and worrying for Miss X. Miss X also explained she had to contact a number of other organisations due to the debtor fraudulently using her address. However, on balance, I do not consider the issues the Council identified with its handling of the issue led to significant injustice to Miss X warrants a financial remedy. By the time the complaint was put in, bailiff action was on hold. There was not a great deal of further correspondence to Miss X’s property after March 2019.

Back to top

Final Decision

24. There was fault by the Council. The Council apologised for shortcomings in its handling of the matter. I consider this was a reasonable remedy to the complaint.
25. I have now completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman