Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s escalation of a penalty charge notice as it would be reasonable for her to take the matter to court. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s enforcement agents as we cannot accept Miss X’s version of events over that provided by the enforcement agents.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains the Council wrongly pursued her for a penalty charge notice (PCN) she had paid. She also complains about the actions of the Council’s enforcement agents (bailiffs).

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. 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)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Miss X’s complaint and the bailiffs’ response. I shared my draft decision with Miss X and invited her comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council issued Miss X a PCN for a parking contravention in December 2017.
7. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for parking contraventions and handling appeals against them. When a council issues a PCN the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal; appeals at this stage are known as ‘informal challenges’.
8. If the motorist submits an informal challenge to a PCN and the Council decides not to accept them, it will write to the motorist and explain why. If the motorist accepts the Council’s reasons they may pay the PCN; if not, they may wait for a ‘notice to owner’. This provides a further opportunity for the owner of the vehicle to pay the charge or make ‘formal representations’ against the PCN. If the council rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
9. If the motorist does not pay or make formal representations the council will issue a charge certificate, increasing the amount payable by 50%. It may then apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court to register the debt, before instructing enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover it.
10. Miss X informally challenged the PCN at the initial stage and, when the Council rejected her challenge, she says she paid the PCN at the discounted rate of £25. Almost two years later Miss X received a letter from the Council’s bailiffs demanding payment for the PCN and additional fees. She says the bailiffs opened her garage and broke into her house, then began towing her car away. Miss X paid the PCN to avoid further action but says the matter caused her stress and trauma. She emailed the bailiffs to complain but says they failed to properly deal with her concerns.
11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. If Miss X wishes to challenge the Council’s escalation of the PCN on the grounds she had already paid it, it would be reasonable for her to apply to the TEC to make a witness statement ‘out of time’. If the TEC accepts Miss X’s application it may cancel the notice to owner, charge certificate and order for recovery and remove the basis for the bailiff’s fees. If the TEC refuses Miss X’s application she may apply for a review of its decision.
12. While there is a separate complaint about the bailiffs’ actions it is unlikely we could effectively investigate the issue now. Miss X has requested footage of the bailiffs’ visit to her property and complains it has failed to provide this. But the bailiffs have explained the footage is no longer available. They have however provided a summary of the recording witnessed as part of an internal audit and this does not support Miss X’s version of events. Because of the conflict in evidence it is unlikely we could reach a view, on the balance of probabilities, about what took place. It is therefore unlikely we would find fault by the Council. If Miss X believes the bailiffs are withholding information she is entitled to see she may wish to take the matter to the Information Commissioner.
13. If Miss X is concerned about the conduct of the bailiffs and wishes to challenge their fitness to practice she may take the matter to court under The Certification of Enforcement Agents Regulations 2014. This is a free process and was set up specifically to deal with such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could effectively investigate Miss X’s complaint about the bailiff’s actions and if Miss X wishes to challenge the Council’s escalation of the PCN it would be reasonable for her to take the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman