Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s escalation of a penalty charge notice as she has sought to challenge its actions at court. We will not investigate her concerns about the Council’s enforcement agents as the Council has provided a suitable way forward and there are other bodies better placed to deal with complaints about their conduct.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains the Council and its enforcement agents (bailiffs) are pursuing her for payment of a penalty charge notice (PCN) she knows nothing about. She has sought to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case by applying to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court and says she has refused to pay the bailiffs as she did not receive any correspondence from the Council about the PCN.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. We may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court but cannot investigate if the person has already been to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Because Miss X has applied to the TEC to make a late witness statement we cannot investigate any complaint about the Council’s escalation of the PCN. If Miss X is not happy with the TEC’s decision she may wish to request a review. However because she has used the alternative remedy available to her we have no jurisdiction to investigate the matter further.
6. While Miss X complains about harassment by the Council’s bailiffs they is entitled to pursue her for payment of a debt the court has confirmed is owed. Miss X says she refuses to pay the debt because she knows nothing about the PCN but we cannot consider this point further as set out above. If Miss X wishes to put a stop to any further action she may wish to consider paying the debt. She may also contact the police if she believes the bailiffs’ actions amount to harassment and she may apply to the relevant court to challenge their fitness to practice if she believes their conduct is unacceptable and/or unlawful.
7. The Council has explained that the bailiffs have processes in place to deal with vulnerable debtors and has invited Miss X to contact them if she considers she falls under this category. This provides a suitable way forward for Miss X and I would encourage her to contact the bailiffs if she is experiencing difficulties as a result of their actions to pursue the debt.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Miss X has used the alternative remedy available to her to challenge the Council’s escalation of the PCN with the TEC and she may contact the bailiffs for support if she believes it should treat her as a vulnerable debtor.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman