Summary: This complaint is about the enforcement action, enforcement fees and the complaint handling. We find fault with some enforcement actions taken on behalf of the Council to recover an unpaid Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and how the Council and the Enforcement Agents dealt with Mx Y’s complaint. We do not find fault in charging the recovery and enforcement fees.

The complaint

1. Mx Y complains about the way the Enforcement Agent (bailiff), acting on behalf of the Council, carried out the enforcement of the PCN. She complains about:
• Lack of notice
• Threat of removing her vehicle despite her Blue Badge
• Entering the house even though Mx Y is a vulnerable person
• Bailiff’s refusal to display an identification badge
• Breaking a plant
• Refusal to leave until the payment is made
• COVID-related concerns – no mask, no gloves, no sanitiser

Mx Y says the bailiff’s actions led to significant stress, anxiety and sleeplessness.

2. Mx Y complains also about the increase of her fine from £25 to £423. She says such unexpected expenditure impacted her ability to afford essentials such as food and fund her heating bills.
3. Mx Y raises concerns about the time it took for the Council and the Enforcement Agents to respond to her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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. 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

7. I have considered all the information and documents provided by Mx Y. I have also requested additional information and documents from the Council and the Enforcement Agents and reviewed them.
8. I watched the video footage of the bailiff’s visit at Mx Y’s property.
9. Mx Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. The Council agreed with my recommendations.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative framework

Taking control of goods and enforcement fees

10. A council or enforcement agent must give a person notice of the warrant before a bailiff obtains goods. (Paragraph 7(1) of schedule 12 of Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007).
11. Bailiffs have the power to enter and re-enter a specific premises if a court has granted a warrant for that premises. (Paragraph 15 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007)
12. Bailiffs must show, on request, a debtor and any other person who appears to them both their identity and their authority to enter the premises. (Paragraph 26 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007).
13. The enforcement agent may enter the premises only if a vulnerable person is not the only person present in the premises. (Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 r.6 & 7)
14. Notice of enforcement must be given to the debtor not less than seven days before the enforcement agent takes control of the debtor’s goods. Notice of enforcement must be given in writing. (Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 r.6 & 7)
15. Vehicles on which a valid disabled person’s badge is displayed are exempt from the enforcement action. (Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 r.4(d))
16. Enforcement agents may charge fees when carrying out enforcement action. To charge the compliance stage fee of £75 an enforcement agent must send a notice of enforcement seven days before trying to take control of goods. A bailiff may charge £235 at the enforcement stage, this stage starts once a bailiff has made a first visit to recover a debt. (Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014)
17. Enforcement agents must not be deceitful by misrepresenting their powers, qualifications, capacities, experience or abilities including falsely implying or stating that action can or will be taken when legally it cannot be taken by that agent. (Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 par.20)

Enforcement Agents’ complaint process

18. The Enforcement Agents’ consider complaints within 3 stages. The resolution officer should acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days and resolve it within 10 working days.
19. If the complainant remains unhappy the complaint is passed to Stage 2 and a senior member of the team will review it withing 10 working days. Stage 3 involves referral to the relevant industry association or the relevant Ombudsman.
20. In every stage, if it is not possibly to provide response to the complainant within the prescribed timescales, officers should contact the complainant explaining their reasons for the delays and when they will respond.

Council complaint process

21. Following the Council’s complaint policy there are 2 stages of the corporate complaint process. Within each stage complaints should be considered within 20 working days. For more complex cases, if it is not possible to resolve a complaint within 20 working days, the Council should provide the complainant with the progress report and when it will be possible to respond.

Key facts

Enforcement fees

22. In February 2019 the Council issued a parking ticket of £25 against Mx Y for parking in a disabled bay without a Blue Badge. As Mx Y did not pay within 14 days, this penalty automatically increased to the full sum of £70.
23. In the beginning of March 2019 Mx Y wrote to challenge this penalty explaining she was a Blue Badge holder, although the badge was not displayed at the time.
24. In the beginning of April 2019 the Council requested more information from Mx Y.
25. Because of the lack of response the Council started debt recovery process by sending a notice to the owner of the car. The registered owner objected to the notice explaining he sold this car some time before.
26. After clarifying the ownership matter, in the beginning of October 2019 the Council sent another notice, this time addressed to Mx Y, followed by a charge certificate.
27. In mid-January 2020 the Council registered Mx Y’s debt. This was followed by a warrant for £113, which included the original parking fine, court fees and adjudication costs.
28. The Enforcement Agents sent to Mx Y’s address the notice of enforcement at the end of February 2020. They added the compliance stage fee of £75, totalling £188. This document explained if Mx Y failed to pay the outstanding debt by a specific deadline, an enforcement agent would visit Mx Y and might seize her belongings. The extra cost of this enforcement stage would be £235.

Enforcement Agent’s visit

29. In the second part of March 2020 the bailiff visited Mx Y to take control of her goods. When Mx Y opened the door the bailiff said he had a warrant and explained which offence it related to. Mx Y remembered her PCN issued the previous year but was convinced the Council closed the matter as she had appealed.
30. The bailiff told Mx Y the appeal must have been unsuccessful since the court issued a warrant. Further during the conversation, when discussing potential results of non-payment, he said he would be able to have her car removed within an hour.
31. Mx Y asked for a few minutes and went indoors. After a short time the bailiff followed her, despite her protests. Mx Y said her partner worked for the National Health Service (NHS) and by entering the bailiff risked catching COVID-19.
32. The bailiff took a seat away from Mx Y and her partner and calmly explained the situation and his role. Several times he confirmed the only way to avoid taking control of goods and further charges was for Mx Y to pay the whole sum of £423. When asked by Mx Y’s, he showed her the warrant.
33. Mx Y asked to make a telephone call to her friend who worked for a solicitor. The bailiff allowed her to do so, although he was getting a bit impatient at this time. At Mx Y’s request, during the telephone call, he showed her his identity badge with the name of the Enforcement Agents but quickly withdrew it.
34. The bailiff took a long time throughout his visit to explain the principles of the enforcement process and advise Mx Y on her position. The whole visit lasted nearly an hour.

Complaint process

35. In October 2020 Mx Y complained to the Enforcement Agents.
36. Mid-December 2020 she contacted them again asking for the update.
37. Not having any response to her communication, in the beginning of February 2021 Mx Y wrote to the Enforcement Agents resolution team.
38. In mid-February Mx Y complained to the Council. The Council responded stating the parking services department would be in touch.
39. Mx Y again contacted the Enforcement Agents in the beginning of May 2021 and received its response three weeks later.
40. At the end of July 2021 Mx Y chased the Council. In the beginning of August 2021 the Council told her it would not be taking more action as the Enforcement Agents already responded to her complaint.
41. The Enforcement Agent provided their Stage 2 response to Mx Y’s complaint at the end of January 2022, recognising there were some faults within the bailiff’s visit and offering a payment of £500. They also apologised for the delays when responding to Mx Y’s complaint.

Analysis

Late complaint

42. Although Mx Y brought her complaint to us more than 12 months from the date of the bailiff’s visit, which she is complaining about, I consider there are important reasons to exercise our discretion and investigate this complaint.
43. Mx Y first complained to the Enforcement Agents in October 2020 and if they resolved her complaint within reasonable timescales, Mx Y might have been able to comply with our time limits for complaints.
44. Mx Y also experienced serious difficulties in challenging the Council, who kept referring her to the Enforcement Agents and refused to consider her complaint.
45. Additionally Mx Y has some vulnerability which I consider relevant when deciding on her ability to deal with the complicated processes.
46. Delays within the complaint processes and Mx Y’s vulnerability in my view justify exercising our discretion and reviewing this late complaint.

Enforcement Agent’s visit

47. Most of Mx Y’s concerns about the bailiff’s visit to her property are not justified by the evidence.
48. The Council and the Enforcement Agents sent to Mx Y all the documents required for the recovery of her parking penalty, including the notice of enforcement with the information on the possibility of a bailiff’s visit. It is not clear why Mx Y was unaware of this correspondence. However, having been provided with this document, correctly addressed to Mx Y, on the balance of probabilities I consider the Enforcement Agents must have sent it to her.
49. Although Mx Y has some vulnerability, when the bailiff entered her property she was not the only person there. Her partner was present throughout the visit. In such circumstances and considering the bailiff’s right to enter a debtor’s property, there was no fault in the bailiff’s actions.
50. The bailiff satisfied Mx Y’s request to show her his identification badge and authorisation to enter her property in the form of the court warrant. Although he quickly withdrew it, Mx Y had enough time to find out which Enforcement Agents the bailiff worked for.
51. There is no evidence of the bailiff breaking a plant in Mx Y’s property. Throughout his visit he walked from the entrance door to the far end of sofa, where Mx Y and her partner directed him to sit. He left the room once to give Mx Y and her partner some privacy to discuss the matter. There is no evidence of any movements which might have led to Mx Y’s possessions being damaged.
52. During his visit the bailiff explained if he did not receive a payment, he would have to advance with taking control of Mx Y’s goods. Such advice, in my view, does not equal to the refusal to leave if the payment is not made. The bailiff advised on the possible courses of action and provided an alternative to non-payment but also explained the issue of extra costs of taking control of goods. The bailiff’s visit lasted an hour, during which time he explained details of the enforcement process, gave Mx Y an opportunity to discuss the matter with her partner and call her friend who worked for a solicitor. I do not find fault in these actions.
53. When addressing Mx Y’s COVID concerns I note the bailiff’s visit was a few days before the government announced the national lockdown and before the enforcement agencies guidance on the visits to properties was introduced. Besides at the beginning of the bailiff’s visit Mx Y explained her partner worked for NHS so might present a COVID risk to the bailiff. In such circumstances, when Mx Y was already exposed to an increased risk of infection, it is unlikely the bailiff’s visit would have caused her excessive distress.
54. The only element of the enforcement action where I find fault is the bailiff’s claim that within an hour he would be able to seize Mx Y’s car. Mx Y told the bailiff in the beginning of their conversation she was a Blue Badge holder. There is no evidence of the bailiff’s examining Mx Y’s car to check whether it was displayed. In such circumstances the bailiff was wrong to make definite statements about his powers to seize Mx Y’s car. This advice caused Mx Y distress and might have influenced her actions.

Enforcement fees

55. Throughout debt recovery and enforcement action the Council and the Enforcement Agents acting on its behalf, were entitled to charge fees. I am satisfied the extra costs of the proceedings charged from Mx Y did not exceed standard recovery and enforcement fees.

Complaint process

56. There were notable delays with the Enforcement Agents’ responses to Mx Y’s complaint. She had to repeatedly contact the Agents and at times received no response.
57. The Enforcement Agents responded seven months after Mx Y’s first contact and provided their Stage 2 response after seven further months. Altogether Mx Y waited 14 months for the completion of the complaint process. It is very likely that if not for the Ombudsman’s involvement, Mx Y’s complaint would have remained unresolved. This is fault which caused Mx Y injustice.
58. The Council refused to get involved in resolving Mx Y’s complaint which is fault. Even if, through the commissioning arrangements, considering complaints is delegated to enforcements agents, the Council retains its monitoring role over the process. In this case, once alerted to Mx Y’s difficulties in getting the Enforcement Agents’ response to her complaint, the Council should have supported Mx Y by ensuring the Enforcement Agents followed their complaint process.
59. The Council’s failure to provide robust advice to Mx Y regarding her complaint rights and its role in the process contributed to the delays in resolving this matter and caused Mx Y distress and confusion.

Back to top

Agreed action

60. In their Stage 2 response he Enforcement Agents offered Mx Y £500 as a compensation for all the faults within the enforcement and complaint process. This payment is now completed. I consider it a fair and proportionate financial payment to recognise injustice caused to Mx Y by some faults in the enforcement process but mainly faults within the complaint process.
61. Additionally I recommend that within four weeks of the final decision the Council complete the following:
• Apologise to Mx Y for the faults identified;
• Provide training to the staff dealing with complaints about enforcement of parking notice charges to ensure they are aware of their role in monitoring how enforcement agents deal with complaints and actively support complainants when necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

I have completed my investigation. I found fault with some enforcement actions and how the Council and the Enforcement Agents dealt with Mx Y’s complaint. The Council agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman