Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr D’s complaint about the way it dealt with 53 parking contravention notices it issued. The initial call handler failed to direct him to the parking control team who could have told him about informal and formal ways of challenging them. The agent failed to refer him to the Council as a potential vulnerable debtor when alerted to health problems. These failures caused no injustice. There was no fault on his claim about wrong advice from officers and fees charged.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains the Council, despite telling him he could park near work until his blue badge permit for car parking arrived, issued him with 53 parking contravention notices (PCNs) over 2 months; as a result, this caused a great deal of stress as it took formal enforcement action for the unpaid fines which led to outstanding costs of £11,000, including bailiff visits.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have not investigated any complaint Mr D may have about the issuing of the PCNs for the reasons set out at the end of this statement.
3. While Mr D had the right to challenge multiple fees on multiple warrants, and the recovery of fees from vulnerable debtors (paragraph 16, The taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014), I exercised discretion to investigate these complaints anyway. This was partly because of the personal circumstances of Mr D and seeing no evidence he was advised of this right. I also took account of the high number of PCNs he received and his health problems. In terms of vulnerability, our role is limited to considering whether the decision about his vulnerability was properly arrived at.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
8. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered all the information provided by Mr D, the notes made of the telephone conversation a colleague had with him, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent him. I sent a copy of my initial draft decision to Mr D and the Council. I considered their responses and sent them a copy of my revised draft decision. I considered their responses to it.

Back to top

What I found

10. Mr D applied for a blue badge from a neighbouring council in April 2018. Under the blue badge scheme, a disabled driver, or someone with a health condition affecting their mobility, can apply for a badge. This allows them to park in places others cannot. It usually lets the driver park for free. The badge was not issued to him until November.
11. In June, Mr D worked within the Council’s area. He parked near to where he worked for ease of access in a pay and display bay without paying. The Council issued him with the first PCN in July. Mr D kept parking in the same place and the Council kept issuing PCN’s. The Council took enforcement proceedings and enforcement agents began to visit.
12. Mr D is unhappy with the Council’s unsympathetic approach which he claims cost him about £11,000 in charges for the PCNs issued. The Council confirmed the actual charge made was £10,072.

Complaint about advice:

13. Mr D complains about the advice the Council gave him when he first contacted it about the PCNs. He claims an officer wrongly told him to send it his badge when he received it as he would not need to pay as parking is free for the disabled.
14. The evidence shows he first contacted the Council in August 2018, after the first PCNs were issued. The Council sent a transcript of his telephone contact with officers. This noted: he was still waiting for his badge; the officer explained the badge will have a start date when it is issued and, it was likely the PCNs will be before that date; this meant he might still need to pay them; the officer advised him to chase his badge application.
15. The Council says it found no evidence to support his claim an officer said it would waive the PCNs when he had his badge. Its records show Mr D only asked for the merger of all PCNs after warrants were passed to the agent. By this point he had to discuss the case with the agent, not the Council. The agent received instructions to enforce from May 2019. At no point did it receive an informal or formal challenge from him.
16. The Council confirmed it did not deal with any of his contact as an informal challenge but, noted he was told about challenging the PCNs during his call in December 2018. It pointed out the PCN sets out what the owner must do to challenge it. This states owners can write to the Council fully explaining their reasons for challenging it. All cases are considered on their merits. This information is also given on the Notice to Owner. This explains the right to make representations and the right to appeal to an independent adjudicator (the Tribunal).

Analysis

17. The procedure for issuing and enforcing a PCN is as follows and is based on the Traffic Management Act 2004:

• Issuing: the PCN;
• Informal challenge; this is not part of the statutory procedure but, councils are encouraged to consider challenges at this stage within 14 days of issuing the PCN. The Council is free to accept or reject the challenge;
• Notice to Owner: this is issued if the council rejects the informal representations or 28 days has passed from date of issue. An owner can send the Council formal representations against the PCN;
• Formal representations: the owner can send these following the issue of the Notice to Owner. The Council can accept or reject them, in which case it sends a Notice of Rejection. If rejected, the owner has 14 days to pay or appeal to the Traffic Penalties Tribunal. The Tribunal can cancel the PCN if one of the statutory grounds are met;
• Charge Certificate: where the notice to owner is not paid with 28 days, or there is no appeal to the Tribunal, a council may serve the owner with a charge certificate. A 50% surcharge is added;
• Notice of Registration: Where the owner fails to respond to the charge certificate within 14 days, the debt is registered with the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court and a Notice of Registration is served. The owner can either pay, send a witness statement to the court asking to revoke the registration, or not respond. The county court will authorise the council to draw up an Order for Recovery; and
• Warrant of execution: If the owner fails to respond to the notice within 21 days, a council can ask the court for a Warrant instructing an enforcement agent to recover the debt. The agent adds their own fees to the penalty charge.

18. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. The transcript of his first call in August 2018, does not support Mr D’s claims an officer told him to send his badge in when he received it. Nor does it support his claim the officer told him he would not need to pay the PCNs.

While the advice and information the officer gave during this initial call could have been stronger, the Council explained this was a call to its general enquiry line, rather than its parking control line. The parking control number is given on the PCN.

It accepts the officer should have transferred Mr D to the parking control team for advice, which would have included how to make a formal or informal challenge, rather than trying to deal with his query. It will address this failing in training provided to staff who work on the general enquiry line.

The failure to tell Mr D about the need to transfer him to the parking control line, or transfer him to that line, was fault.

2. The transcript of a call in October 2018 again failed to explain he could challenge the PCNs but, he was given the number for parking control. I consider giving Mr D the number meant he could have spoken to someone trained in parking control who could deal with his specific enquiry.
3. None of the other transcripts of calls I have seen support his claim of an officer telling him he would not have to pay the PCNs. The transcripts show what officers told him on each occasion:

6 December 2018: An officer responded to an internal call about Mr D. The officer confirmed he was issued with 46 PCNs, all in the same place and he was not allowed to park there before he received the badge and correctly displayed it. The officer said he should write in for each PCN and follow the appeals procedure.

17 January 2019: This recorded Mr D providing a change of address. The officer explained he cannot park where he is parking without the badge. The note records Mr D rejecting this advice.

7 June: An officer again advised Mr D he could not park without displaying a valid badge. He was told no officer would tell him what he claimed was said.

17 July: An officer advised him no officer would have told him each PCN would be cancelled when he got his badge or that they could be dealt with as one. The officer noted he was advised to write in but, Mr D said he could not do so because he moved address. The Council refused to recall the cases from the agent. The officer told him the Council did not get involved with agent’s additional charges.

19. On balance, I am not satisfied the fault identified caused Mr D an injustice. I say this because Mr D was advised about challenging the PCNs during another call in December, about 12 weeks after his initial call. I consider it unlikely it would have made any difference had the Council given him information about appealing or challenging the decisions during the August call. This is partly because Mr D did not go on to challenge any of them. I also consider it unlikely treating his comments in August, or any made later, would have led to a different outcome even if the Council had treated it as an informal challenge. This is because it is unlikely the Council would have accepted his claim anyway.

Complaint about bailiff fees:

20. Mr D complains about the enforcement agent’s actions and claims they:

• dealt with each PCN separately, which increased costs;
• charged £1,400 for the final visit;
• visited the wrong address; and
• refused to make any concessions for his disability, for example.

21. The Council confirmed the agent did not charge £1,400 for the last visit to his property.
22. For cases received in May 2019, the address for Mr D was property 2. They issued a notice of enforcement on each account for that address. The notice to owner was sent to a mix of property 1 and property 2 several months later. By the time the order for recovery was sent out, they were sent to property 4.
23. The Council explained it gets the registered keeper of the vehicle’s address from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency 28 days after the PCN is issued. If correspondence sent to a driver is returned, officers then carry out an Experian search to find an alternative address. Before registering the debt at the Traffic Enforcement Centre, officers carry out a further Experian check. Mr D contacted the Council in January and July 2019 saying correspondence went to old addresses. When it discovered he had moved, documents were served again but at the new address. If Experian shows 2 possible addresses, the Council serves documents again to the address with the ‘highest residency score’, unless it receives extra reliable information about where he lives.
24. The Council explained while he mentioned his disability in his calls, he did not say he was unable to manage his own affairs. He told officers he was self-employed. Mr D says he told the agents he was vulnerable, as was his partner who has hearing problems, but they refused to listen when they visited his house.
25. In response to my enquiries, the Council said agents follow the guidelines set out in the Ministry of Justice’s, ‘Taking Control of Goods National Standards 2014’, and are trained to recognise vulnerable charge payers. The agent would assess if the debtor is able to deal with their own affairs and if they found they could not, would withdraw and refer it back to the Council. While Mr D told the agents he was an amputee, the Council said he did not, ‘suggest that he was unable to deal with his own affairs’. He also made them aware of his heart problem and was self-employed. The agents decided there was nothing to suggest he was unable to deal with his own affairs.
26. The Council also provided a copy of a questionnaire completed by the agent during a telephone call. This asked, ‘Are there any special circumstances of which we need to be of’ and was marked ‘Yes’. Underneath, the box asking for details noted ‘Amputee, hear[t] issues mobility issues’.

Analysis

Charging separately:

27. The Council’s ‘Parking Control: Enforcement Activities and Policies’ notes the level of charges for PCNs are between £50-70. It also explains it may use certificated enforcement agents to recover debt for unpaid PCNs. The agent recovers the debt on behalf of the Council and the debt now includes the PCN amount, the statutory fees, and the reasonable fees incurred due to the agent’s action. Once the warrant is with the agent, payments must be made to the agent, not the Council.
28. The Council’s policy (‘Parking Control: Appeals Processes and Discretion Policies’) states challenges (informal representations) must be made in writing. It recommends they are made through its online portal called ‘Manage your PCN’ on its website.
29. Under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 (regulation 4), the enforcement agent may recover from the debtor, certain fees which includes the compliance stage (all activities from receiving instructions) to the enforcement stage (all activities from first attending premises).
30. According to the Council’s records, it issued Mr D with the following 53 PCNs (2 were cancelled):

2018:

• July: 7
• August: 9
• September: 7
• October: 16
• November: 12

2019:

• January: 2

31. In response to further enquiries, the Council provided evidence showing it issued 51 PCNs to Mr D. These amounted to Council costs of £5,583. I have seen evidence of the compliance fees the agent applied to each of those which amounts to £3,825. In addition, the agents added £300 for the first enforcement stage fee (June 2019) and £364 for the second one (October 2019). This amounts to agent’s fees of £4,489 bringing the total amount payable by Mr D to £10,072.
32. The compliance stage is defined as all activities from the agent’s receipt of the warrant to before the start of the enforcement stage, which is the first visit to the premises. (paragraph (5 (1) (a)Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014)) They must issue a Notice of Enforcement 7 days before the agent intends to visit to take control of goods. The agent is encouraged to contact the debtor by letter or telephone and arrange for payment of the debts. Once they make a visit, the compliance stage ends, and the enforcement stage starts. A council is likely to insist a debtor makes any arrangements to pay the debts with the agent.
33. The regulations set out the fees for different stages:

• Compliance stage: £75
• Enforcement stage: £235 (plus 7.5% of any balance of £1,500)
• Sales/Disposal stage: £110 (plus 7.5% of any balance of £1,500)

34. They can charge the compliance fee for each warrant they hold for a debtor. Where they act under more than one enforcement power and can reasonably exercise those powers at the same time, they can only make one charge for the enforcement and sale/disposal stage. (paragraph 11 (1) Fee Regulations)
35. The agents said they had no complaint from Mr D about charges. Had he done so, they would have provided him with details about relevant law and guidance on their complaint procedure.
36. I make the following findings;
1. I found no fault on the agent charging a compliance fee for each warrant they held for every PCN which amounted to £3,825 (51x £75).
2. The agent also applied 2 enforcement charges, one in June 2019 (£300: this was made up of £235 plus 7.5% of the balance) and the second in October (£364). I found nothing wrong with the agent charging for both. The second charge was made when the agent received a further 6 warrants which increased the overall balance when the second visit took place.

Final visit charge:

37. While Mr D claimed the agent charged £1,400 for a final visit, I found no evidence this was correct. I found no fault on this complaint.

Wrong address:

38. The Council had a call from Mr D in January 2019 when he disclosed his new permanent address. I saw evidence the Council sent documents to Mr D at property 1 (his earliest address), then to property 2 before his telephone call in January 2019 that he had moved, and once to property 3, before all correspondence being sent to property 4 once he had made his call. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied it was fault for the Council to send documents to these addresses.

Vulnerabilities:

39. There is no set definition of what a vulnerable person is but, in the Ministry of Justice ‘Taking Control of Goods National Standards 2014’, (paragraph 74), it includes those for reason of age, health or disability are unable to safeguard their personal welfare or the personal welfare of other members of the household.
40. Disability, and disabled person, is defined in s1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as a person who has a, ‘physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities’.
41. The Standards state agents and creditors must recognise they each have a role in ensuring the vulnerable and socially excluded are protected and the recovery process includes procedures agreed about how situations that arise should be dealt with. The agent has a duty to contact the creditor and report the circumstances where there is evidence of a potential cause for concern. (paragraph 70)
42. Agents should be aware that vulnerability may not be immediately obvious. (paragraph 76)
43. Where a debtor is vulnerable, the enforcement fee is not recoverable until the bailiff has, before taking control of goods, allowed him or her to have an adequate opportunity to get help and advice. (paragraph 12 Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014)
44. I found fault on this complaint having taken the following in to account:
1. Mr D has a disability and a problem with his heart of which the Council and the agent were aware.
2. The agent completed a questionnaire with Mr D which highlighted these issues.
3. The Council, in its response to my enquiries, said the agents recorded his health issues but, there did not appear to be any immediate concerns. There is no evidence showing how the agent reached this conclusion. The Council went on to say if Mr D had demonstrated he was unable to deal with his own affairs, the agents would have referred the case to it. Without any evidence of how the agent explored this with Mr D, this placed the onus on him to show he was vulnerable, likely without knowing he needed to do so.
4. I consider the agent had reason to suspect there was potential cause for concern after completing the questionnaire which highlighted his heart problem and mobility issue as an amputee.
5. There is no evidence showing the agent or the Council actively considered his vulnerability on the information provided. This is fault.
6. I am not satisfied the fault caused him a significant injustice. This is because while Mr D says he is vulnerable, he failed to explain why and what impact this had on his ability to deal with the Council or agent. I also note the agent did not recover any goods during either visit.
45. In response to my revised draft decision, the Council confirmed it carried out a review of its process to ensure vulnerable individuals are identified as such. It will work with its agents to ensure its questionnaire is changed so the agent asks the individual whether they consider themselves vulnerable. Where the individual does consider themselves vulnerable, or this question is unanswered, the agent will pause debt recovery and tell the Council immediately about it.
46. The Council has also published guidance documents on its website about its enforcement policies and activities, appeals process, and discretion policies.

Back to top

Final decision

47. The Ombudsman found fault causing no injustice on Mr D’s complaint against the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

48. I did not investigate any complaint Mr D had about the Council issuing the PCNs. This is because he had the right to appeal them to the traffic penalty tribunal. One of the grounds he could have challenged them was the ‘contravention did not occur’ which would include his argument the vehicle was entitled to park there. I see no reason to exercise discretion to investigate this complaint.
49. Mr D is unhappy with the 7 months it took the neighbouring council to issue the badge. He complained to it about the delay. Mr D will need to make a separate complaint to us if he wishes us to investigate this council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman