Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to take account of her vulnerability when seeking recovery of several Penalty Charge Notices for parking. There is no evidence of fault causing injustice by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complains the Council is unfairly seeking recovery of a number of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) for parking on double yellow lines. She says the Council and its enforcement agent have not taken her vulnerability into account.

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’. 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).
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have discussed the complaint with the complainant and considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Ms 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

5. During 2021 the Council had issued 6 PCNs to Ms X for parking on double yellow lines. Ms X had also received several PCNs from the Council in the years before 2021. Ms X had not made representations to the Council or appealed to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. As she did not make payment within the period required, the Council registered the debts with the Traffic Enforce Centre. It then passed these accounts to its enforcement agent to collect the outstanding amounts.
6. Ms X says that she suffers from depression and anxiety and has other mental health conditions. This means that she is fearful coming home from work at night and parks as close to her home as possible, sometimes on double yellow lines. She also says that she often does not open her post due to her mental health conditions and because of the stress caused.
7. The Council has confirmed that its enforcement agent had received information in May 2020 from Ms X’s doctor which confirmed her mental health conditions. However, it did not specify that these conditions meant she could not manage her money or that there were special circumstances which should be taken into account when communicating with her.
8. The enforcement agent says as a result of the information from her doctor it flagged Ms X’s case to show that she was vulnerable. However, it noted the doctor did not state that her conditions affected her ability to manage her affairs. The agent says that at the time the information was received, recovery was on hold due to the Covid 19 pandemic.
9. In October 2020 the enforcement agent visited Ms X’s home. However, he noted Ms X’s vulnerability and did not knock on her door as he did not wish to cause her distress. He left a letter for her to contact him.
10. Ms X contacted the enforcement agent in February 2021 following a text message. The agent agreed a temporary arrangement of £30 per month. Ms X provided further evidence that her mental health conditions affected her ability to manage her finances. In April Ms X discussed and agreed a payment arrangement of £50 per month to cover all her outstanding PCNs.
11. In March 2021, Ms X had complained to the Council that she had explained the reasons why she parked near her home were due to her mental health condition. But a Council officer had told her it was too late to challenge the PCNs. She asked if the Council could give her a permit to park in a nearby car park, as she knew the Council had done this for a neighbour. She said she felt unsupported and the Council was ignoring her. She asked the Council to bring the PCNs which now amounted to £3900, back from the enforcement agent.
12. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. It apologised that she felt unsupported. It said that its enforcement agent had specialist advisors who were experts in liaising with people who have mental health conditions. Therefore, it believed the matter could be resolved with them. It said it was surprised the outstanding debt was £3,900 and asked for more information. It noted that Ms X asked for a permit for a car park. But it said the car park was managed by the district council. It suggested Ms X contacted the district council.

Analysis

13. Based on the information and evidence I have seen, I have not found fault causing injustice to Ms X by the Council and its agents. Ms X did not appeal or make representations to the Council regarding the PCNs, so the Council and the Tribunal could not consider her grounds for appeal.
14. It appears the enforcement agent has considered its Vulnerability Policy as it has flagged Ms X’s account and taken her vulnerability into account when seeking to recover the outstanding PCN account. It considered the impact that a visit would have and left a letter rather than knocking on Ms X’s door. It has accepted an arrangement at a low rate to cover all her PCNs, although it points out that any new PCNs would need to be discussed before being included in the plan.
15. If Ms X keeps to the arrangement the agent and the Council accept she will clear the arrears, although it will take a long time. If she is unable to maintain the arrangement, she can contact the agent to discuss the matter.
16. I note when Ms X asked about a permit for the nearby car park, the Council advised Ms X to contact the district council. While it could have contacted the district council itself, to assist Ms X, I do not think this amounts to fault. Ms X has advised me that she was already on the waiting list herself for this car park. Unfortunately, when she was offered a permit, she was no longer working so this was not necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman