London Borough of Brent (20 004 923)

Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 18 Feb 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained enforcement agents acting for the Council wrongly removed his vehicle for the former owner’s debt. The Council accepted the removal could have been avoided, apologised to Mr X and offered him £200 to recognise the distress it caused. The Council accepted fault and it agreed to provide the remedy it had already offered. We are satisfied with the Council’s actions and so we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complained enforcement agents (bailiffs) acting for the Council wrongly removed his vehicle while attempting to collect a debt owed by the former owner. He said the bailiff did not wait for him to prove he owned the vehicle, ignored his disabilities, and damaged his vehicle. Until his vehicle was returned, Mr X said he was effectively housebound and how the bailiffs treated him affected his mental health. He wanted the Council to repair the damage to his vehicle and pay him a financial remedy.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have investigated how the bailiffs decided to remove Mr X’s vehicle and the effects this had on him.
  2. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  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)
  4. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
  5. 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

  1. I considered the information Mr X provided and discussed his complaint with him.
  2. I considered the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided.
  3. I considered the relevant law.
  4. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

  1. The Council may ask enforcement agents (bailiffs) to attend a person’s property and take control of goods to recover an outstanding penalty charge for breaking parking rules.
  2. Bailiffs’ powers to seize goods are set out in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (“the Act”). Schedule 12 of the Act provides a clear procedure for how bailiffs may take control of goods.
  3. The law allows bailiffs to take control of goods which belong to the person who owes the money or goods which they have a legal interest in.
  4. A person sent an enforcement notice may not dispose of any of their property. However, if a third party buys goods, in good faith, from a person who was sent an enforcement notice, the third party still becomes the lawful owner of those goods.
  5. The law says if a third party claims the bailiff has taken their goods they can dispute this with the bailiffs and Council. The rules say the third party should, within seven days, serve a notice on the bailiff. The bailiff has three days to pass this to the Council. The Council decides if they accept the claim or not, and, within seven days lets the bailiff know their answer. The bailiff then has three days to tell the third party.

What happened

  1. Mr X bought his van in mid-November 2019. He says he registered the change of ownership straight after the sale.
  2. Around a week later, bailiffs acting for the Council clamped Mr X’s van because the Council’s records showed there were outstanding parking penalties registered against it. Mr X did not know anything about the penalties because the Council issued these earlier in 2019, before Mr X bought the van.
  3. Mr X contacted the bailiff who met Mr X at his van.
  4. Mr X identified himself and told the bailiff the date he bought the van. However, Mr X did not have any proof of his identity or that he had bought the van with him at the time.
  5. Mr X says he told the bailiff that he was disabled and vulnerable. He also says the bailiff agreed to wait for Mr X to return with the documents to prove he owned the van.
  6. Mr X’s discussion with the bailiff was recorded on the bailiff’s body worn video. A transcript of the recording shows that while Mr X identified himself, there is no evidence Mr X explained, at the time, that he had a disability or was vulnerable. During a call to his office, the bailiff expressed doubt that Mr X was the person named on the outstanding parking penalties and asked Mr X if he had any identification with him. However, while the transcript also shows Mr X told the bailiff he would be returning with proof of ownership, there is nothing to suggest the bailiff agreed to wait.
  7. The Council says the bailiff decided to remove the van because it had been clamped in October 2019 but the clamp had been removed without permission.
  8. After the bailiff removed the van, Mr X complained to the Council and to the bailiffs. The Council advised Mr X to complete a form claiming ownership and to provide proof he owned the van.
  9. Mr X did this and, in early December, the Council accepted he was the owner. The bailiffs returned Mr X’s van to the same road four days later, 14 days after the they removed it.
  10. Mr X complained further to the bailiffs and the Council about the removal of his van. He said he had been housebound while without his van.
  11. In its final response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council accepted the bailiff could have avoided removing the van if they had waited for Mr X to prove he owned the van. The Council apologised to Mr X and said it would pay him £200 to recognise the distress caused by the removal of his van and the time he spent proving he owned it.
  12. However, the Council also noted that Mr X had told it he did not have insurance for his van at the time the bailiff removed it. So, the Council decided he could not have used it. Therefore, the Council did not accept it caused Mr X to be without the use of his van for the two weeks he was it.

My findings

  1. Mr X’s account of what happened when he met with the bailiff and the transcript of the body worn video recorded at the time give different versions of events about what happened. Where there is a conflict of evidence, we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
  2. Based on the evidence I have seen, I am satisfied Mr X explained to the bailiff that he had recently bought the van. However, I am not satisfied that the bailiff was aware at the time that Mr X was disabled or vulnerable. I am also satisfied that although Mr X believes the bailiff agreed to wait for Mr X to bring the documents, the bailiff did not say anything to lead Mr X to that belief.
  3. However, the evidence shows Mr X raised a reasonable doubt that he was not the same person who incurred the parking penalties, and the bailiff shared that doubt. Because Mr X had only recently bought the van, it is possible the records consulted by the bailiff’s office may not yet have been up-to-date.
  4. The Council accepts there was a reasonable doubt about the ownership and the removal could have been avoided. It apologised to Mr X and says it offered him £200 for the avoidable distress it caused but Mr X has not yet provided his bank details so the Council can pay him. I am satisfied the Council’s apology and offer of £200 remedies the injustice caused to Mr X by the avoidable removal of his van.
  5. While Mr X clearly found the process of having his van removed and the complains process stressful, the evidence shows the Council dealt with his claim of ownership within the timescales it should have. It also responded quickly and proportionately to his complaints. Based on what I have seen, there was no fault in how the bailiffs or the Council handled Mr X’s complaints.

Agreed action

  1. Within one month of my final decision the Council has agreed to pay Mr X the £200 it said it would pay in its final response to his complaint.
  2. The Council should provide evidence it has done this to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr X’s complaint. There was fault in how the Council’s bailiffs decided to remove Mr X’s van. This caused him distress and inconvenience in proving he owned the van. However, the Council has already apologised to Mr X and offered him £200 to recognise his distress. I am satisfied this remedies the injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. I have not investigated the alleged damage to Mr X’s van.
  2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. Claims for damage to property can be brought in the courts.
  3. We have discretion to set aside this rule if we think there are good reasons. I have decided not to exercise discretion because:
    • liability for damages is best decided by the courts; and
    • I have seen no good reasons why Mr X could not take court action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings