Summary: We have not investigated a complaint about the issue of a penalty charge notice and the complainant’s attempts to challenge it, because there is a statutory right of appeal for such matters, and the complaint is late. We have investigated a complaint about the conduct of bailiffs in seeking to enforce the debt arising from the notice, but we cannot draw a conclusion because there is no objective evidence about the visit. We have therefore discontinued our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainants as Mr and Mrs G.
2. Mr and Mrs G complain:

• in August 2020, the Council wrongly issued Mr G a penalty charge notice (PCN) for an alleged parking offence. Mr G was then unable to contact the Council to challenge the PCN and so was wrongly led to believe it had been cancelled;
• enforcement agents (‘bailiffs’) then visited their property in December 2021 without prior warning and demanded payment for the PCN and associated fees. The bailiffs threatened to call a locksmith to force entry to the property, which is unlawful, called the police to intimidate Mr G, and refused to accept his evidence the PCN was wrongly issued. Mr G paid the debt but was so traumatised by the incident that he then tried to take his own life, and was arrested and detained under the Mental Health Act.

3. Mr and Mrs G says the latter events occurred only because the Council’s systems for dealing with PCNs were not functioning. Mrs G also complains that Mr G was able to pay the PCN and fees with her credit card, without her permission.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated the second part of Mr and Mrs G’s complaint.
5. I have not investigated the first part of Mr and Mrs G’s complaint. This is because the law provides a statutory route of appeal against PCNs, which was reasonable for Mr G to use. We cannot and do not consider whether a PCN was correctly issued, and we have no power to overturn a PCN.
6. In addition, this part of Mr and Mrs G’s complaint is late, being made more than 12 months after the events it concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

7. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
8. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
9. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I reviewed Mrs G’s correspondence with the Council and enforcement agency, the Council and agency’s procedures for dealing with vulnerable debtors, and a written statement given by the bailiff who visited Mr G.
11. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

12. In her complaint, Mrs G refers to ‘bailiffs’ (plural) having undertaken the visit to Mr G. However, the enforcement agency’s response implies there was only a single bailiff present during the visit. I will therefore refer to both ‘bailiffs’ and ‘bailiff’ as appropriate in this decision statement.
13. In August 2020 Mr G received a PCN for a parking offence. Mrs G says Mr G was parked lawfully using a Blue Badge.
14. Mrs G says Mr G attempted to use the Council’s online portal to appeal the PCN. He then received another letter about it, and called the Council to discuss it, but there was no-one available “due to covid”. He then tried to appeal again on the portal and did not receive a response, and so believed the PCN had been withdrawn.
15. In December 2021, bailiffs from the enforcement agency visited their property. The bailiffs told Mr G he now owed £423 for the unpaid PCN and associated fees, and Mrs G says they threatened to return to the house with a locksmith to unlawfully gain entry and take control of goods if Mr G failed to pay.
16. Mrs G says Mr G informed the bailiffs he was disabled and on his own, but the bailiff ignored this and continued to intimidate him. She also says the bailiffs refused to explain if they were from a court or to show his ID. The bailiffs then called the police to intimidate Mr G further, claiming inaccurately that Mr G was blocking their van in and refusing to allow him to leave. Mrs G says the bailiffs also refused to consider the evidence Mr G had to show the PCN should not have been issued.
17. After the bailiffs left, Mr G called their mobile phone and paid the PCN and fees with a Mrs G’s credit card, without her consent. He then called her and told her he was going to take his own life. Mrs G called the police, who, finding Mr G in a state of distress and armed with a knife, arrested and detained him under the Mental Health Act.
18. Mrs G submitted a complaint to the Council about this in April and May 2022. The Council responded in June.
19. The Council explained Mr G had parked his vehicle where it was not permitted to do so, even with a Blue Badge. It explained the process for challenging a PCN and said appellants could do so via the online portal, by email, telephone or post, and that Council officers had been working in the office at that time.
20. The Council said it had received no reports from its system provider that the online payment portal for PCNs was not functioning at the time Mr G claimed to have used it. The Council also provided the dates it had sent out the various pieces of correspondence it was required to in pursuing and escalating a PCN. After the initial stage of the process, it had received information that Mr G was at a different address to where it had been writing, and so sent a further Notice to Owner to the correct address. The Council said this notice was not returned as undelivered.
21. The Council noted Mrs G’s comments about the bailiffs, but said the enforcement agency itself would deal with this element of her complaint.
22. The enforcement agency subsequently wrote separately to Mrs G. It explained bailiffs are lawfully permitted to attend an address and “make peaceful entry”. Unfortunately, while its bailiffs are issued with body-worn video cameras (BWVCs), the footage was no longer available because of the length of time since the visit had occurred. It therefore could not comment on Mrs G’s allegations about the bailiffs’ conduct during the visit. The agency also explained that bailiffs’ role is to collect payment in accordance with the warrant issued to them, but are unable to discuss events prior to this.
23. The agency said it had received a written statement from the bailiff who made the visit. The bailiff said he had returned to his vehicle and was making notes, at which point Mr G had appeared and stood in front of the vehicle, “beating” the bonnet with his hand. Mr G had refused to move so the bailiff could leave, and so he called the police for assistance. The police had arrived and convinced Mr G to move, at which point the bailiff left.
24. The bailiff then said he had received a series of phone calls from Mr G. He became concerned for Mr G’s welfare because of comments he made during these calls, and so he called the police again to alert them to his.
25. The agency noted Mrs G had said she had called it again later on to complain about the visit, and said it “did not care in the slightest”. The agency said it had no records of receiving a call from her, and asked her for the date, time and number she had called from so it could investigate further. It also explained that calls to bailiffs’ mobiles were not recorded.
26. Mrs G referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2022.

Back to top

Analysis

27. The Council has provided me with a copy of the bailiff’s written statement about the incident.
28. The bailiff said he had had no answer at the door of the property, and so had returned to his van to make notes. At this point Mr G appeared and identified himself. The bailiff noted Mr G was “visibly upset” and had stood in front of his van, lightly beating the bonnet with his fist and demanding to know if the bailiff was a “sheriff”.
29. The bailiff said he decided to remain in the vehicle to avoid escalating the situation, and asked Mr G to call him to discuss the matter. However, he could not drive away, because Mr G was standing directly in front of his van, and the garage door was directly behind. The bailiff wrote Mr G had then begun to make phone calls, and fearing this was to encourage his friends to come to the property, he then decided to call the police for assistance.
30. The police arrived quickly and convinced Mr G to move to allow the bailiff to leave, which he did. The bailiff said he later received a series of phone calls from Mr G, first to pay the PCN and fees, and then to make “verbal attacks on [his] morality”. In one call, the bailiff said Mr G appeared to make threats to harm himself, and so after this call the bailiff contacted the police again to raise a concern for his welfare.
31. The bailiff also said Mrs G had later called him, at which point he explained he had contacted the police again because he was concerned about Mr G’s safety.
32. This account differs significantly from the account Mr and Mrs G have provided. In particular, while Mr and Mrs G’s account says the bailiff had spoken to Mr G at the door and threatened to return with a locksmith, the bailiff himself says he did not speak to Mr G at all until he returned to his vehicle. The bailiff’s account also implies he did not discuss the debt itself while he was at the property, but simply asked Mr G to allow him to leave and then call him later.
33. I also note the bailiff’s account does not indicate Mr G told him he was disabled or vulnerable while he was at the property, but does say the bailiff later contacted the police out of concern for Mr G’s welfare.
34. I am therefore left with two very different versions of events, and without any objective evidence which would allow me to favour one over the other. It is unfortunate the BWVC footage is no longer available, but the enforcement agency’s retention period for this data is 45 days, and so I cannot criticise the fact it had deleted it by the time it received Mrs G’s complaint, some 5/6 months after the incident.
35. This being the case, I am unable to make a finding on Mrs G’s allegations about the bailiffs’ conduct during the visit to Mr G.
36. However, I will note that, as the enforcement agency told Mrs G, it is not for bailiffs to discuss the merits of a PCN they are trying to enforce; their role is simply to collect the debt in accordance with the warrant they have received. So I would not criticise the bailiffs for failing to accept evidence from Mr G that the PCN was unfair, even if I was satisfied this had happened.
37. I will also not criticise the bailiffs for allowing Mr G to pay with Mrs G’s credit card, despite her not giving permission. Even assuming the bailiffs were aware Mr G did not have his wife’s permission to use her card, it would not be for them to question this. This is a matter between Mr and Mrs G alone.

Conclusions

38. I have not investigated the first part of Mr and Mrs G’s complaint, because it falls outside our jurisdiction for the reasons given at paragraphs 5 and 6.
39. I have discontinued my investigation of the second part of the Mr and Mrs G’s complaint, because I have been unable to make an objective finding on the evidence available to me.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman