Summary: Mr X alleges attempted fraud by misrepresentation by an enforcement agent appointed by the Council to enforce an unpaid penalty charge. There was fault because the agent did not provide a warrant during a visit to Mr X’s home. The fault did not cause an injustice that warrants further pursuit of the complaint by, or a remedy from, the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant here as Mr X. Mr X alleges attempted fraud by misrepresentation by an enforcement agent appointed by the Council to enforce an unpaid penalty charge. Mr X says:
• The enforcement agent blocked his driveway thus preventing him from leaving for his workplace.
• The agent demanded £2,000 from him ‘to make the situation go away’.
• The agent refused to provide his name and only did so when the Police were called.
• The agent arrived before 6am.
• The agent did not provide any court documents, in particular a warrant, when asked by Mr X.
2. Mr X wants compensation for distress, trauma and attempted fraud by misrepresentation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal.

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

4. 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

5. I considered the complaint and background information provided by Mr X and the Council. I discussed matters with Mr X. I observed footage of the enforcement agent’s bodycam for the duration of the visit to Mr X’s home. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Council. I discussed matters further with Mr X. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.

Back to top

What I found

The warrant recovery process in relation to unpaid penalty charge notices (PCN)

6. Where a PCN remains unpaid after a council has sent notices directly to the registered keeper of a vehicle, the council should then register the PCN as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. The TEC should then authorise the council to issue a warrant of execution to an enforcement agent to recover the outstanding debt.
7. An enforcement agent will have a valid warrant of control authorised by the TEC. The details of the warrant must be stored by the Enforcement agent electronically and be made available in hard copy upon request. A warrant of control expires 12 months after the date of issue and unless it is extended, cannot be used to support recovery of an outstanding debt after this time.
8. An enforcement agent must be certificated by a county court. A valid photo certificate must be carried by the enforcement agent and shown if requested.
9. An enforcement agent must not discuss a warrant with any third parties unless authorised to do so by the named person on the warrant.
10. An enforcement agent is obliged to provide the named person on the warrant with a clear explanation of their fees and any other charges which apply in respect of the recovery of the outstanding debt.
11. The named person on the warrant has a right to challenge the registration of the debt by making an application to file either a statutory declaration or witness statement out of time. It is a criminal offence to make a false witness statement.
12. If the challenge is successful then the county court order of recovery will be withdrawn. The council that issued the PCN should then either cancel the PCN or issue a new notice to owner.

What happened

13. The council issued a PCN in early 2020. Mr X was identified as the registered keeper. The Council sent notices to him at the registered address. Mr X did not respond and so the Council applied to the TEC for a warrant of execution early in 2021.
14. The enforcement agents sent a notice of enforcement to Mr X. Mr X did not respond. An enforcement agent visited his home. The agent could not make any contact. The agent made another visit and was again unsuccessful in making contact.
15. In April 2021, the enforcement agent visited Mr X’s home on two occasions. The agent was able to speak with Mr X. Mr X told the agent he had filed a witness statement and showed the agent documents which appeared to confirm what he said.
16. Given Mr X’s explanation, the enforcement agency contacted the Council after the visit. The Council says the witness statement provided by Mr X appeared to have been falsified because statement referred to a different vehicle registration. The Council did not have any record of an out of time witness statement being filed with the TEC. The Council therefore authorised the enforcement agency to proceed with enforcement.
17. Another agent then visited Mr X in May 2021. It is this visit which is the basis of this complaint. The agent visited Mr X two days before he filed an out of time witness statement with the TEC. After the witness statement was registered with the TEC, the Council told the enforcement agents to stop enforcement.
18. Footage from the enforcement agent’s bodycam shows the agent arrived after 6am. The footage shows he offered documents to show the purpose of his visit to Mr X. However, he did not have a copy of the warrant of execution with him. He did not offer his name to Mr X. Mr X initially parked by the gate leading to Mr X’s home but moved his car when asked to do so by Mr X.
19. The agent referred to a previous application by Mr X to the Traffic Enforcement Court. He said Mr X had not paid £2000 he owed to the Council.

Finding

The enforcement agent blocked Mr X’s driveway thus preventing him from leaving for his workplace.

20. The agent parked partly across the driveway to Mr X’s home. The footage does not show Mr X about to leave for work. The footage shows the agent moved his vehicle when asked to by Mr X. I do not consider the way the agent parked is a significant enough matter to amount to fault.

The agent demanded £2,000 from Mr X ‘to make the situation go away’.

21. Mr X and the agent had a fractured conversation in which both parties made contending points at different times and then picking up on threads of what the other party said at other points. The agent did mention £2000 being the amount Mr X owed for a different PCN. Mr X, on the other hand, refused to listen to the agent’s attempt to explain what he owed with regard to the PCN being acted upon by the agent.
22. The footage does not prove the agent asked Mr X for £2000 to make the situation go away. I do not find this service can now establish the veracity of what was said by either party.

The agent refused to provide his name and only did so when the Police were called.

23. The agent was required to provide his name at the visit. This is usually in the way of showing photo identification. I did not observe the agent giving his name to Mr X at the outset.
24. This is a marginal judgement call on whether there was procedural fault by the agent. Mr X had telephoned the police at an early stage of leaving his home to approach the enforcement agent. Their conversation was then essentially a three way one with Mr X mostly directing his words at the agent in between his discussion with the telephone operator.
25. Even if I find fault by the Council here, I do not find Mr X suffered an injustice that warrants a remedy from the Ombudsman because the agent did not give him his name directly or as soon as both parties were in sight of each other. The agent gave his name to Mr X later on in the conversation. I do not find that any delay caused Mr X a degree of injustice that warrants a remedy from the Ombudsman.

The agent arrived before 6am

26. The footage shows the agent arrived after 6am

The agent did not provide any court documents, in particular a warrant, when asked by Mr X

27. Mr X says here that the agent’s visit was unlawful. Mr X says the enforcement agents told him the matter had been placed on hold because he filed an out of time witness statement with the TEC. He refers to a conversation the agent who visited him in May 2021 had with his office. The agent reportedly asked his office what he should say if someone asked for a warrant in paper. Mr X says the agent’s visit was not in the agency diary. Mr X says the agent did not have any court papers or warrant on him because they did not exist.
28. The enforcement agent guidelines say warrants of execution are usually held electronically but a paper copy should be produced if requested.
29. It is established the agent did not provide Mr X with a paper copy at the time of the visit. This is procedural fault.
30. And the injustice?
31. The Council had sent notices to Mr X previously. The enforcement agent also sent a notice of enforcement to Mr X when the matter was referred to them by the Council. These documents, especially the notice of enforcement, are sufficient to establish the bona fides of the debt and the reason why the enforcement agents were seeking to enforce the debt.
32. I have separately sent Mr X confirmation of the warrant sent from the Council to the enforcement agents in January 2021.
33. Mr X applied to the TEC for a witness statement in May 2021 two days after the visit by the agent. This suggests Mr X was aware that the document he gave to the enforcement agent in April 2021 was not one that had been signed or validated by the TEC. It is not surprising that an enforcement agent visited Mr X in May 2021 after the enforcement agents and the Council discovered the document was a false one. While the enforcement agent who visited Mr X in May 2021 did not take a copy of the warrant to show Mr X, I do not find that error meant Mr X was unaware of the reason for the visit or the existence of the debt.
34. I do not find Mr X suffered significant injustice because he was not given a paper copy of the warrant at that May 2021 visit. Mr X was aware of the debt from earlier notices sent by the agents and the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

35. There was procedural fault by the enforcement agent during the May 2021 visit to Mr X’s home. However, the fault did not cause Mr X significant injustice that warrants further pursuit of this matter by, or a remedy from, the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman