Summary: Ms B complains that an enforcement agent acting on behalf of the Council visited her property and attempted to clamp her car despite enforcement having been placed on hold pending consideration of her case by the court. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault and has recommended a remedy for the injustice suffered by Ms B.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains that an enforcement agent acting on behalf of the Council visited her property and attempted to clamp her car despite enforcement having been placed on hold pending consideration of her case by the court.

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. 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. I have considered the information provided by Ms B together with the Council’s response to her complaint.
6. I have written to Ms B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

7. Ms B received a penalty charge notice (PCN) from the Council. She submitted an out of time witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. The Council received notification of this from the TEC on 14 January 2019. It had already passed the debt to enforcement agents (‘bailiffs’) so it instructed them to place the account on hold pending the court’s decision.
8. On 7 February 2019 the TEC decided to refuse Ms B’s witness statement.
9. On 15 February 2019 the Council wrote to Ms B advising her of this and stating that the PCN had been passed to the bailiffs. The letter confirmed that the amount outstanding was £203 plus the bailiffs’ fees.
10. On 22 February 2019 the Council received notification from the TEC that Ms B had filed a request for a review of its decision. The Council sent an email to the bailiffs instructing them to place the warrant on hold.
11. On 15 March 2019 a bailiff visited Ms B’s property and attempted to clamp her car while she was putting her children in the car to take them to school. Ms B says there was an altercation, her neighbours became involved and the police were called. Her children were very distressed. She says she had to pay £513 to prevent the bailiff clamping her car causing her bank account to become overdrawn.
12. Ms B later telephoned the Council explaining what had happened. The Council said it had instructed the bailiffs to put the warrant on hold, but they had not actioned this.
13. The Council then instructed the bailiffs to return the warrant and refund the full amount paid by Ms B as the warrant had been enforced despite them being instructed to keep the case on hold.
14. Ms B made a formal complaint to the Council. It did not uphold the complaint because it had correctly instructed the bailiffs to put the warrant on hold while the case was being considered by the TEC and, once it was informed that the bailiffs had proceeded with the warrant prematurely, it refunded the amount Ms B had paid.

Analysis

15. The Council acted correctly by instructing the bailiffs to place the warrant on hold pending consideration of Ms B’s case by the TEC. But the bailiffs proceeded to enforce the warrant despite the Council’s instruction. This was fault.
16. As the enforcement agents were acting on the Council’s behalf, it is responsible for this fault. The Council was therefore wrong in not upholding Ms B’s complaint.
17. Enforcing the warrant prematurely caused Ms B a significant injustice. She and her children were distressed and she was embarrassed that the bailiff’s visit was witnessed by her neighbours. Ms B was also put to time and trouble in pursuing the matter with the Council.
18. Ms B was put to additional time and trouble in pursuing the complaint with the Ombudsman when the Council failed to accept responsibility for the bailiff’s actions.
19. The Council has partially remedied the injustice caused by refunding the amount Ms B paid. However, I do not consider that this is a sufficient remedy. The Council should also apologise to Ms B for the bailiff’s actions and for its failure to accept responsibility for those actions.

Agreed action

20. To remedy the injustice caused to Ms B, the Council has agreed that, within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision, it will send her a written apology for the distress and time and trouble she and her family were put to as a result of the bailiff’s visit and its failure to accept responsibility for the bailiff’s actions.
21. 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, I have made recommendations to the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I uphold Ms B’s complaint.
23. I find the Council was at fault in that the bailiffs acting on its behalf enforced the warrant despite being instructed to put enforcement on hold pending the TEC’s consideration of Ms B’s case. I also find the Council was at fault in failing to accept responsibility for the bailiffs’ actions.
24. I have completed my investigation because the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman