Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to properly deal with a parking Penalty Charge Notice. The Council was at fault for providing Ms X with incorrect information about her clamped car and its failure to release Ms X’s clamped car in a timely manner. As a result, the Council’s failings caused Ms X time and trouble and avoidable stress. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to properly deal with her Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and her clamped vehicle.
2. Ms X says the Council’s failings has caused her financial loss, damage to and loss of her vehicle and significant distress to her and her family.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated the Council’s failure to properly deal with Ms X’s clamped car which resulted from a PCN it issued to Ms X on 15 July 2019 and the effects this had on her.
4. I have not investigated the PCN matters dealt with by the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the County Court. Court matters are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. 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)
7. The courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, reference or review or remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
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)
9. 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

10. I discussed the complaint with Ms X and considered the information she provided. I also considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
11. I sent Ms X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and considered all comments received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

12. The Traffic Management Act 2004 governs the procedure which must be followed by councils issuing penalty charge notices (PCNs). Parking enforcement officers can issue a PCN if a vehicle is parked illegally.
13. If the owner does not do so, the Council will register the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court and ask the TEC to issue a warrant of execution (‘a warrant’).

Civil Enforcement

14. A council can then send the warrant to a certified Enforcement Agent. The agent will send a Notice of Enforcement to the debtor. This will again request payment and warn that, if payment is not received, the agent may take further action. The agent may clamp a vehicle owned by the debtor.

Guidance to Local Authorities on Civil Enforcement

15. The Department for Transport has issued Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions. Chapter 11 deals with the use of enforcement agents. Among the guidance offered are the following:

• ‘Local authorities should remember that enforcement agents are acting on their behalf and that, ultimately they are responsible and accountable for the behaviour’.
• Local authorities should actively manage their contracts with enforcement agents ensuring they are aware of how the agents are operating.

What happened

16. This chronology sets out key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
17. In July 2019, the Council issued Ms X a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for a parking contravention.
18. Ms X informally challenged the PCN. She submitted representations with proof explaining her circumstances. The Council acknowledged receipt of Ms X’s informal PCN challenge.
19. In August 2019, the Council rejected Ms X’s PCN challenge. The Council sent Ms X its rejection decision letter. Ms X alleges she did not receive the Council’s notice of rejection letter.
20. Between September and November 2019, the Council sent PCN statutory correspondence to Ms X. The Council said it did not receive any response including formal representations from Ms X and she did not make any PCN payments during the statutory timescales.
21. Ms X said the Council did not respond to her PCN challenge and it continued to pursue her for the PCN payments.
22. The Council registered Ms X’s unpaid PCN with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). The Council received a warrant from the TEC and it appointed an enforcement agent to recover the debt.
23. On 10 March 2020, the enforcement agent clamped Ms X’s car.
24. Ms X submitted an out of time witness statement to the TEC. She informed the Council she had not received its response to her PCN representation. Ms X told the Council her car had been clamped. She said she did not receive the Order for Recovery and she questioned how the Council had handled her PCN matter. Ms X said she was not given a fair opportunity to challenge the Council’s PCN decision according to the statutory process.
25. The Council received notification from the TEC that Ms X submitted an out of time statutory declaration. At the time, the Council had already passed the debt to the enforcement agent so on 17 March 2020, it instructed the enforcement agent to place the account on hold pending the court’s decision.
26. In April 2020, the Council opposed Ms X’s out of time witness declaration. The Council sent the Notice of Objection of Account to Ms X and the TEC setting out its reasons for its objection.
27. In May 2020, the TEC refused Ms X’s witness statement. The Council notified Ms X of this and stated the PCN had been passed to the enforcement agent. The letter confirmed the outstanding amount was £203 plus the enforcement agent fees.
28. Ms X filed a request for a review of the TEC decision. Ms X believed the facts of her case were not properly reviewed. The Council instructed the enforcement agent to place Ms X’s case on hold.
29. In June 2020, a County Court held a hearing on Ms X’s PCN case. The Court ruled in her favour. The Court ordered Ms X to rely on the witness statement she filed out of time. The Council informed Ms X that due to the court’s ruling, it would take back the Order for Recovery, cancel the Charge Certificate and any enforcement agent fees. The Council explained to Ms X the PCN was not cancelled and the outstanding amount at the time was £130. It informed Ms X not to pay the charge if she wished to challenge the matter further. The Council said it did not receive the representation Ms X initially submitted. It asked Ms X to supply a further copy of her representations.
30. In July 2020, Ms X sent a copy of the court order to the TEC. She informed it the Council failed to comply with the court’s ruling and her car remained clamped. The TEC sent an out of time revoking order to the Council and Ms X. The order did not cancel the original PCN. The Council sent Ms X a new charge certificate to Ms X with an outstanding charge of £195.
31. In August 2020, Ms X’s car remained clamped. Ms X made a complaint to the Council. She complained about the Council’s failure to properly review her PCN and representations. Ms X stated her car had been unlawfully clamped for several months. She said the Council’s failings had caused her and her family significant distress and financial strain. Ms X was left without a car and due to her child’s health conditions, she had to rely on taxis. Ms X also said her car had been damaged and would need to be replaced. This was due to the amount of time her car was clamped and remained stationary.
32. The Council informed Ms X the enforcement agent confirmed her car was released on 23 March 2020. Ms X replied to the Council with a video recording to show her car remained clamped as of 19 August 2020. The Council advised it will further investigate the matter with the enforcement agent.
33. On 24 August 2020, the enforcement agent visited the location of Ms X’s clamped car and it released the car. The Council apologised for the incorrect information it gave Ms X about the release of her clamped car. As a result of the enforcement agent’s failure to remove the clamp on Ms X’s car, the Council cancelled her PCN. Ms X told the Council due to the long period her car was stationary for, the car was damaged and required major repairs to it. Ms X requested reimbursement from the Council to replace her car.
34. In its stage 1 response to Ms X’s complaint, the Council apologised again for the confusion and inconvenience caused as regards Ms X’s clamped car. The Council confirmed it issued the PCN correctly on 15 July 2019. But due to the enforcement agent’s failure to remove the clamp on Ms X’s car, the enforcement agent apologised and offered Ms X £200 as compensation. The Council also offered £200 to Ms X and it cancelled the PCN. The Council said the enforcement agent reviewed its clamping process. Enforcement agents would be required to provide photographs and recordings of vehicles as evidence to the Operations Manager for process reviews.
35. Ms X disagreed with the Council stage 1 response and escalated her complaint to stage 2. Ms X said the Council’s total compensation of £400 was unreasonable because of the injustice the matter had caused her and her family.
36. In its stage 2 response, the Council upheld its initial response. Ms X remained dissatisfied and made a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

37. Ms X’s PCN matters were considered by the TEC and the County Court. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot investigate these matters. This is because court matters are out of our jurisdiction.
38. I find the Council acted correctly when it instructed the enforcement agent to place Ms X’s case on hold pending considerations by the TEC on two occasions. But the enforcement agent failed to remove the clamp on Ms X’s car despite the Council’s instruction.
39. The enforcement agent clamped Ms X’s car on 10 March 2020. It informed the Council the clamp was removed on 23 March 2020 but this information was incorrect. The clamp on Ms X’s car was removed on 24 August 2020. This was approximately a five-month period. This was fault.
40. As the enforcement agent was acting on the Council’s behalf, it is responsible for this fault. The Council’s failings caused Ms X avoidable stress and the time and trouble she went to in chasing the Council to remove the clamp from her car. The Council accepted it provided Ms X with incorrect information about the release date of her clamped car and the delay in removing the clamp. It has apologised to Ms X. The Council also cancelled Ms X’s PCN and it offered her £400 financial remedy. These are proportionate and appropriate remedies and in accordance with our guidance on remedies. The Council will pay Ms X an additional £100 for the trouble and time in pursuing her complaint. It is also for the distress caused to Ms X for not having her car during the period the car was clamped.
41. As regards Ms X’s allegation of the extensive damages caused to her car because of the duration the Council clamped her car, there is no clear evidence to show the clamp caused the damage to Ms X’s car. Like most property damage claims, it would be for the courts rather than the Ombudsman to decide if the Council should be liable to pay damages. Therefore, I find it would be reasonable for Ms X to take the matter to court.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:

• pay Ms X the £400 financial remedy it previously offered her in recognition for the incorrect information and poor standard of service provided to Ms X.
• pay Ms X £100 for the time and trouble in pursuing her complaint and the distress caused to Ms X for not having her car during the period the car was clamped.
• confirm the enforcement agent’s review process for clamped vehicles have been implemented. This should include agents providing photographs and recordings of vehicles as evidence to the Operations Manager for process reviews.

43. The Council should provide the Ombudsman with evidence that the above actions have been completed.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I find evidence of fault by the Council leading to injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

45. I have not investigated the PCN matters dealt with by the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the County Court. Court matters are not within our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman