Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about @.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council issued him a penalty charge notice (PCN) for a contravention he did not commit. He says he is disabled and vulnerable and is unhappy the Council has pursued the PCN and instructed enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover payment from him.

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 law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

The process

7. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing PCNs for moving traffic contraventions. When a council identifies a contravention it will issue a PCN to the owner/registered keeper by post. This will detail the amount of the fine and the motorist’s right of appeal, firstly to the council itself and then to a Tribunal.
8. The motorist has 28 days from the date of the notice to pay the penalty charge or make representations against it.
9. If the motorist does not pay the PCN or challenge it, or if their representations are unsuccessful, the council may issue a charge certificate increasing the amount of the penalty charge by 50%. If the charge remains unpaid the council may then register the debt with the county court and serve an order for recovery, allowing bailiffs to recover payment.

Back to top

Background

10. Mr X made representations against the PCN on the grounds he had never been to the Council’s area and was not responsible for the contravention. He suggested his numberplate had been cloned.
11. The Council responded to Mr X’s representations and said that if he believed his numberplate had been cloned he should report the matter to the police and the DVLA. It asked Mr X to provide evidence to show he had reported the incident and placed the case on hold for two weeks to give him time to do so.
12. Mr X has never provided any evidence to show he reported the possible cloning of his numberplate to the police or the DVLA and has at no time told the Council that he has done so. He has however raised concerns about the escalation of the case to the bailiffs and threatened to apply to the court to question their fitness to practice.
13. Mr X says the Council’s bailiffs are harassing him and he believes its actions are against relevant guidelines. But the bailiffs are entitled to pursue him for payment subject to consideration of his vulnerability in accordance with Regulation 12 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. This states that action to recover a debt can only take place once the debtor has been given “an adequate opportunity to get assistance and advice in relation to the exercise of the enforcement power.”
14. The Council confirms the case remains at the compliance stage, meaning the bailiffs have not yet visited Mr X’s property to take control of goods to satisfy the debt, and that its communications to date have only encouraged him to contact them to discuss payment and set out the consequences of not doing so.

Back to top

My assessment

15. The Council’s actions are in accordance with the PCN process and the relevant regulations for taking control of goods. Mr X had the opportunity to report the possible cloning of his numberplate to the police and the DVLA and to provide evidence to the Council but he did not do this. Had he done so, it is likely the Council would have cancelled the PCN; if it did not, it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
16. However, because Mr X did not provide evidence to the Council or challenge the PCN further, the Council escalated the PCN in accordance with the statutory process. This resulted in the registration of the unpaid PCN as a debt and the instruction of bailiffs to recover it. This was not fault.
17. The bailiffs have given Mr X ample opportunity to engage about the debt, which remains payable, and to get assistance and advice as required by Regulation 12. At the time of the Council’s complaint responses the bailiffs had not visited Mr X’s property but Mr X cannot expect them to keep a hold on the case forever. He should therefore engage with the bailiffs about the debt and may wish to provide evidence to the Council to show he reported the possible cloning of his numberplate to the police and the DVLA. It would then be for the Council to decide whether to accept this evidence outside the normal timescales.
18. If Mr X believes the Council’s bailiffs have failed to comply with the regulations and any relevant code of conduct Mr X may wish to apply to the court to challenge their fitness to practice, as he has already threatened to do.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. The Council placed a hold on the case to allow Mr X to provide evidence to show he had reported the possible cloning of his numberplate to the police and the DVLA and has allowed Mr X additional time to engage with its bailiffs to address his claimed vulnerability.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman