Summary: Mr Y complained about the Authority enforcing several unpaid penalty charge notices which resulted in the recovery and sale of his car by enforcement agents. We should not investigate this complaint about enforcement of a penalty charge notice because it is unlikely that we would find fault and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Authority has failed to suspend enforcement of several penalty charge notices (PCNs), which resulted in his car being recovered and sold to pay for the debts incurred. He complains the Authority then used monies received from the sale of his car to pay PCNs which were not listed on the Taking Control of Goods Notice.
2. Mr Y says this caused him significant distress, financial loss, loss of his car as well as time and trouble pursuing his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided. Mr Y now has an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider his comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr Y incurred several PCNs between 2017 and 2018. There is a set procedure which authorities must follow when pursuing PCNs for parking contraventions and handling appeals against them. When an authority issues a PCN the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal. If the authority rejects the motorist’s formal representations the motorist may appeal to the London Tribunals.
6. If the motorist does not pay or make formal representations the authority 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 bailiffs to recover it.
7. In this case, the Authority followed this process before becoming aware Mr Y had moved. It successfully applied to the TEC to have the enforcement warrant amended in September 2018. Mr Y then filed an out of time declaration to the TEC in relation to several other PCNs issued by the Authority and another body. While the TEC ordered recovery action to stop on the other PCNs, the Authority says no response was received following the Notice of Enforcement the bailiffs sent to Mr Y in September 2018. Consequently, Mr Y’s car was recovered in September 2018 by the bailiffs. It was then sold in November, and the monies then used to pay three PCNs.
8. The Authority agreed in its complaint response in August 2020, that it had incorrectly used funds from the sale of the car to pay two PCNs which had not been listed on the Taking Control of Goods Notice used to sell the car. The Council offered to refund the money used, amounting to £646 and as a gesture of goodwill to pay back costs to Mr Y which had paid for from the sale of the car, amounting to £242.

Analysis

9. As the Authority properly followed the process in pursuing the PCN, which eventually led to the recovery and sale of Mr Y’s car, it is unlikely we would find fault. While the Authority did receive an order to suspend the enforcement for other PCNs, as an order was not received for the PCN enforced against, the Authority were entitled to pursue the debt under the warrant issued by the TEC.
10. The Authority agreed it should not have used the funds from the sale of Mr Y’s vehicle for the other two PCNs. As the Authority was able to sell the car for the original PCN, the car would have been sold so this would not be an injustice. The Authority has refunded the money it used to pay the two other PCNs and then agreed to pay Mr Y an additional amount, which would be sufficient to remedy any upset caused to Mr Y. Consequently, the Authority has acted to remedy the injustice. Any injustice which remains is not significant enough to warrant our investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We should not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely that we would find fault and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant our investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman