Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not properly take account of her vulnerability when enforcing an unpaid penalty charge notice. Miss X says she suffered a harmful impact on her mental health and spent unnecessary time and trouble in trying to resolve the matter. We have found fault by the Council but do not consider it caused Miss X an injustice requiring a remedy in addition to the action the Council has already taken.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complains the Council did not properly take account of her vulnerability when enforcing an unpaid penalty charge notice (PCN) and its enforcement agent provided incorrect information.
2. Miss X says because of the Council’s fault, she has suffered a harmful impact on her mental health and she has spent unnecessary time and trouble in trying to resolve the matter.

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’. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 read the papers provided by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her. I have considered some information from the Council. I have explained my draft decision to Miss X and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Miss X received a PCN on 19 June 2021 for parking in a pay and display bay without displaying a valid ticket. The charge was £50 which would be reduced to £25 if paid within 14 days.
7. The Council did not receive payment or an informal challenge to the PCN.
8. The Council issued a Notice to Owner to Miss X on 2 August which gave 28 days for payment of the full amount. The Council did not receive any formal representation in response to this notice.
9. The Council issued a Charge Certificate to Miss X on 7 September which increased the amount due to £75.
10. Miss X sent an undated letter to the Council which it received on 8 September. Miss X stated she had been displaying a blue badge at the time of the PCN. Miss X did not provide any reason for not responding to the earlier notices.
11. The Council rejected Miss X’s representation on 8 September as late. The Council explained Miss X had lost her right of appeal as she had not replied within the required timescales to either the PCN or Notice to Owner. The Council further explained there had not been a blue badge displayed at the time of the PCN and even if there had been Miss X would still have received the PCN as parking was only free for blue badge holders if parked in a designated disabled bay and Miss X was not parked in such a bay. The photographs taken at the time of the contravention show there was no ticket or blue badge displayed.
12. Miss X says she did not receive the Council’s letter above. This is regrettable as Miss X may well have provided details of her vulnerability to the Council in response to such a letter. However, there is no evidence Miss X did not receive this letter through some fault by the Council. In these circumstances, the Council was entitled to progress the matter through the statutory process and refer the debt to its enforcement agent.
13. The Council obtained an order for recovery on 4 October and a Warrant on 16 November when it passed the matter to its enforcement agent. This added court fees of £9 to the amount due which was now £84.
14. The Council’s agent sent a Notice of Enforcement to Miss X on 17 November. This added a compliance fee of £75 to the amount due which was now £159.
15. Miss X contacted the enforcement agent on 19 November by email to ask for the matter to be returned to the Council as she was vulnerable. Miss X provided relevant health details with this email.
16. The enforcement agent referred the case to its Welfare Team in line with its published policy. There was no enforcement visit to Miss X. The Welfare Team wrote to Miss X on 3 December asking her to contact it about making an arrangement to pay. Miss X complained about the letter received.
17. The enforcement agent provided a response under its complaints procedure on 9 December which set out the relevant legislation about vulnerable debtors and explained it would allow Miss X additional time to arrange payment or seek advice. The enforcement agent also sought financial information to help agree a reasonable repayment schedule. Miss X responded to say she needed more time to get help with completing the financial information form. The agent confirmed it would place Miss X’s account on hold for 28 says on 20 December to allow her to obtain advice.
18. During the above email exchange, the agent misquoted the relevant legislation relating to when an enforcement agent must withdraw and failed to include that an agent must withdraw if the only person present was deemed to be vulnerable by the enforcement agent. This is fault. Miss X says this caused her considerable distress as she feared the agent would visit and remove goods despite her vulnerability. This is regrettable but I have taken into account that the agent had not visited Miss X and already accepted her evidence of vulnerability and referred her to its Welfare team by this stage. I also note Miss X raised this issue and set out the correct wording in her subsequent complaint to the Council. In the circumstances, I do not consider this fault caused Miss X a significant injustice requiring a remedy. The Council may wish to contact its agent to remind it of the importance of providing full and accurate information when setting out its powers.
19. Miss X contacted the Council on 21 December to explain the reason why she had not responded to the PCN or subsequent notices and provided details about her health and that she could not pay the amount due. The Council responded on 22 December to explain the above chronology of events and that Miss X’s options now were to agree a repayment plan with its agent or apply to the Court for an out of time witness statement.
20. Miss X emailed the Council on 22 December to accept the parking contravention and to say she would pay the original PCN but not the additional charges as she had not replied due to a disability. There followed a further exchange of emails and the Council provided details of how to make a late request to the Court.
21. Miss X emailed the Council on 29 December to say she had not received its rejection letter in September and its enforcement agent had provided incorrect information. The Council responded the same day to say its enforcement agent had its own team to assist vulnerable debtors and Miss X could seek help from an advice centre for help with completing the financial form. The Council did not consider Miss X had been disadvantaged during the process.
22. Miss X complained to the Council on 29 December as she considered the Council’s enforcement agents had lied about their powers and ignored her medical evidence.
23. The Council responded to Miss X on 30 December to provide details of how to make a complaint in the first instance to its enforcement agent. This email included the phrase “You did not make use of your disability until after the case was with one of our Enforcement Agents.”
24. Miss X complained to the Council on 30 December to reiterate her previous concerns and about the phrase in the Council’s email above.
25. The Council acknowledged Miss X’s complaint on 13 January 2022 and provided a substantive response on 14 January with an apology for the slight delay. The Council accepted its agent had not provided the correct information and apologised for the phrasing in its earlier letter. The Council explained it had meant to say, ‘you had not made us aware of your disability’ rather than ‘made use of your disability’. The Council confirmed if its agent had visited Miss X’s property and identified her as vulnerable the Council would have expected the agent to withdraw and follow the guidance at that point but noted no visit had taken place. The Council provided a detailed response to the points raised by Miss X about her vulnerability and considered its own public sector equality duty.

26. The Council’s email of 30 December was poorly worded. However, I cannot establish the intent and if the wording was in error or poor drafting. I consider the action taken by the Council of an apology is enough to remedy any injustice to Miss X.
27. Miss X remained unhappy with the Council’s response and escalated her complaint to the second stage of the Council’s complaint procedure. The Council provided a further response to Miss X on 1 February. The Council explained that if Miss X’s late representation had highlighted a vulnerability it may have considered accepting a late appeal or a payment plan at that stage but noted it was only made aware in December 2021 which was some time after the matter had been passed to its agent.
28. The Council has suspended the warrant and removed the £75 compliance fee and set up a payment plan for the £84 at £7 per month for 12 months thereby allowing extra time to pay the amount due. The Council explained this was to address the disadvantage of having bailiff fees added as Miss X had explained she would have responded sooner if able to at the time.
29. I am satisfied the Council has provided Miss X with a detailed response to her complaint taking into account her vulnerability and its own Public Sector Duty. In addition, the Council has removed the compliance stage fee of £75 and agreed to a repayment plan to allow Miss X extra time to repay the amount due. The incorrect information provided by the Council’s enforcement agent to Miss X occurred some time after the matter had already been referred to them. I have not identified any other fault by the Council which would provide grounds for me to recommend it do more.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation as I have found fault by the Council but consider the action it has already taken provides a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman