Summary: Ms X complained Transport for London issued a penalty charge notice to the wrong address, so she was unaware of it. She also complained enforcement agents attended her home unannounced, did not provide her with correct paperwork or a breakdown of costs, and did not wear a body camera. She said the enforcement agent harassed and intimidated her into making payment. There was no fault in the way the penalty charge notice was issued or enforced.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained Transport for London (TfL) issued a penalty charge notice to the wrong address, so she was unaware of it. She also complained enforcement agents attended her home unannounced, did not provide her with correct paperwork or a breakdown of costs, and did not wear a body camera. She said the enforcement agent harassed and intimidated her into making payment.
2. Ms X said this impacted her mental health as well as impacting her financially.

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)
5. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Ms X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of TfL and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. Ms X and TfL had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Congestion Charge

9. If you drive your car within the Congestion Charge Zone, you must pay a daily fee of £15. This is known as the Congestion Charge. It may be possible to apply for an exemption or a discount in certain circumstances.
10. If you fail to pay the Congestion Charge, you may receive a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
11. If TfL records and captures an image of your vehicle in the Congestion Charge Zone and you have not paid the daily charge by midnight on the third day afterwards, TfL will issue a PCN to the registered keeper of the vehicle.

Penalty Charge Notices

12. You can get a PCN for illegal parking, breaking traffic rules, or not paying low emission zone and congestion zone charges.
13. If you do not pay a PCN within 28 days, you will get a charge certificate. You will then have 14 days to pay the original PCN plus an extra 50% more.
14. If you do not pay a charge certificate within 14 days, you will get a court order demanding payment. This order is called a recovery order.
15. You will then have 21 days to pay the PCN or challenge the recovery order.
16. If you do not pay or challenge the recovery order within 21 days, enforcement agents can be instructed to visit your home to collect what you owe.

Enforcement agents

17. Guidance from the Ministry of Justice ‘Taking Control of Goods: National Standards’ dated April 2014, states enforcement agents should only work between 6am and 9pm. It also states agents should be respectful of religious days and cultural events.
18. The Ministry of Justice guidance confirms enforcement agents must act within the law at all times. They must not be deceitful or misrepresent their powers and they must not falsely imply, or state action will be taken when legally it cannot.
19. Enforcement agents must not act in a threatening manner by making gestures or taking actions which could reasonably be construed as suggesting harm or risk to debtors.
20. Enforcement agents shall gain access to goods they are taking control of without the use of unlawful force. They must produce all relevant notices and documents and should always produce identification.
21. Enforcement agents should give the debtor a receipt for goods removed, or they should leave a receipt at the premises. Agents should not press debtors to make unrealistic offers.
22. A Ministry of Justice press release ‘Compulsory body-worn cameras for bailiffs to protect vulnerable’ dated 13 December 2022 outlines the Government’s plans to make it compulsory for enforcement agents to use body worn cameras. The Government said it will be a legal requirement and will ensure enforcement agents are accountable for their behaviour. At the time of writing, the plans have not been made into law.

What happened

23. On 11 November 2021, Ms X’s car was photographed driving in the Congestion Charge Zone without having paid the Congestion Charge.
24. TfL conducted a search with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) for the name and address of the registered keeper. The DVLA provided Ms X’s name and address on 17 November 2021. TfL then issued Ms X a penalty charge notice (PCN) on the same day.
25. The PCN explained Ms X had 14 days to pay a reduced charge of £80. If not, then the full charge of £160 was due. If Ms X then did not pay the full charge by 17 December, TfL may issue a charge certificate. That would increase the charge to £240. Failure to pay the increased charge could result in TfL registering a debt in Court. The PCN explained how Ms X could pay the charge and how she could make representations against it.
26. TfL did not receive payment or representations from Ms X. It therefore issued a charge certificate on 4 January 2022. This explained that, as Ms X failed to pay the PCN within 28 days, the penalty had increased to £240. Ms X had 14 days to pay, or TfL could register the debt with the Court. If Ms X still failed to pay, TfL could obtain a warrant for enforcement agents to recover payment. Ms X would also be liable for added Court and enforcement agency fees.
27. TfL still did not receive payment from Ms X, so it registered the debt at Court. TfL sent a recovery order to Ms X on 21 February 2022. This gave Ms X 21 days to pay the recovery charge of £249, or to file a statutory declaration with the Court explaining why she did not think she was liable to pay.
28. As Ms X did not pay or respond, TfL instructed an enforcement agency to recover the debt.
29. The enforcement agency wrote to Ms X on 14 April 2022. It said she had not paid a PCN from TfL relating to the Congestion Charge scheme. It said TfL took the matter to Court and the Court issued a warrant of control. The agency asked Ms X to pay £324 or contact them by 22 April to discuss the case. The letter confirmed if Ms X did not pay or contact the agency by 22 April, the agency would pass the warrant to an enforcement agent and more costs would be added to the debt. The agent could then remove Ms X’s vehicle or goods. The letter confirmed the fee for the enforcement stage would be £235.
30. Attached to the enforcement agency’s letter was a copy of the notice of enforcement. This confirmed Ms X owed £249 to TfL, plus a compliance stage fee of £75.
31. The enforcement agency wrote to Ms X again on 25 April 2022. It said she owed £324, but if she did not pay straight away there would be a minimum of £235 added charges for an enforcement agent to visit.
32. An enforcement agent visited Ms X’s home on 11 May, 12 May, and 7 June 2022 but could not make contact with Ms X. The agent left paperwork requesting payment or contact.
33. An enforcement agent visited Ms X’s home again at 10:25 on 22 January 2023. The agent fitted a clamp to Ms X’s car, in order to take control of it, and produced a note confirming they had done so because she had not paid the outstanding debt. The note confirms the agent’s name, the name of the enforcement agency, and Ms X’s reference.
34. Ms X paid the outstanding debt of £559. The enforcement agent then produced a receipt for payment. This confirms who Ms X owed a debt to (TfL), the amount of the debt, the compliance stage fee, the enforcement stage fee, The PCN reference number, and Ms X’s reference number with the enforcement agency.
35. Ms X complained to the enforcement agency about the visit. She said:
• It was an unexpected visit at about 11:45 on a Sunday morning, and the agent clamped her car and blocked the entrance to her home.
• The agent told her the car would be towed away unless she paid the debt immediately.
• She was shocked and frightened, as the visit was unexpected and the agent did not say who he was, where he was from, or what the debt was about until she asked.
• She asked the agent for documentation about the debt, but he did not have any.
• She tried to contact the enforcement agency, TfL, and Citizens Advice, but it was a Sunday morning and outside business hours so she could not get any help.
• She felt frightened and intimidated into paying in full to release her car.
36. Ms X asked the enforcement agency for a full refund. She said the money was obtained from her dishonestly and illegally, with no warrant issued before the visit and using intimidation and fear tactics.
37. Ms X also complained to TfL. She attached a copy of her complaint to the enforcement agency. Ms X said she was unaware the enforcement visit was going to happen and was ambushed into paying £559 to stop her car being towed away. She said she asked the enforcement agent for further information, but he did not have any or provide any. Ms X felt the agent acted illegally and immorally as he did not provide any documentation and used threatening and intimidating techniques. Ms X still did not know what the matter was about and asked TfL to refund the £559.
38. TfL responded to Ms X’s complaint on 1 February 2023. It said it correctly issued a PCN to Ms X on 17 November 2021 and attached a copy. It also referred to a previous PCN Ms X received, also for driving in the Congestion Charge Zone without paying the daily charge. It said, as with the previous PCN, it did not hear anything from Ms X despite issuing notices to her address, so it was eventually passed to an enforcement agency to collect payment. The agency then sent an enforcement letter and follow up notices to Ms X’s address. As Ms X did not respond, an enforcement agent visited her home in May and June and left paperwork with a full breakdown of the fees. Ms X still did not respond and so her vehicle was clamped. This is in line with the enforcement agency’s procedures.
39. TfL said all enforcement agents can access a digital copy of the warrant of control and Ms X could check the PCN using TfL’s website as the details were in the paperwork left by the enforcement agency. The agent was correct that Ms X’s car would be removed if she did not pay. The agent noted Ms X has a video doorbell and TfL invited her to send any footage she may have if she believed the agent acted unprofessionally. TfL said it was satisfied the correct process was followed in issuing the PCN through to enforcement.
40. The enforcement agency responded to Ms X’s complaint on 3 February 2023. It said it interviewed the agent, who is self-employed but was working for the agency at the time. The agency confirmed it issued an enforcement notice to Ms X in April, and this is the only notice it must send before an agent can visit. It also said it attended Ms X’s home three times before her car was clamped and the agent left paperwork each time.
41. The agency said it understood enforcement visits are difficult, but the agent acted in a fit and proper manner. He gave advice about the consequences of non-payment; it was not a threat. The agent said Ms X did not ask for paperwork, and if she had he would have supplied it.
42. The agency said it is allowed to visit to take control of goods between 6am and 9pm 7 days a week. It said no refund was due and Ms X paid a legally due debt which was collected correctly.
43. Ms X contacted TfL again on 16 February 2023. She said from December 2021 to October 2022 she was not living at her usual address. She was living at a temporary address. She provided a copy of a council tax bill as evidence of this.
44. Ms X said TfL had not provided copies of the notices or warrants the enforcement agency sent, and they cannot take control of goods unless they give the debtor notice. She said the agent did not provide this information at the visit in January 2023 and she did not receive it prior to the visit.
45. TfL sent its final response to Ms X on 20 February 2023. It attached copies of all documents it sent before it passed the case to the enforcement agency. It said when it passed the warrant to the agency, they checked Ms X’s address with the DVLA. It said it cannot be held responsible for any delays by the DVLA updating a change of address. It repeated the enforcement agency sent letters to Ms X about the debt, but she did not respond.
46. TfL said it checked the issue about the body worn camera with the enforcement agency. The agent who attended confirmed his camera was out of power, so he was recording on his mobile phone before Ms X asked him to stop. TfL said body worn cameras should be usable for a visit, so this was raised with the enforcement agency to take appropriate action.

My investigation

47. Ms X told us she did not receive the PCN from TfL as she was living at a different address temporarily. She said she updated the DVLA about her temporary address in December 2021. Ms X said she has since applied for another driving licence with her current address and has not had a written response from the DVLA about that either.
48. Ms X disputed the enforcement agents’ version of events and said he did not try to film on his mobile phone. Ms X also told me she does not have a video doorbell, she has an intercom system.
49. TfL told me Ms X’s car drove in the Congestion Charge Zone on 11 November 2021. It checked the registered keeper address with the DVLA and sent paperwork to that address. When Ms X did not respond, TfL obtained a charge certificate and a recovery order. As Ms X still did not respond, TfL issued a warrant to the enforcement agency in April 2022.
50. The enforcement agency also checked the DVLA database and found the same registered keeper address. The enforcement agency issued a notice of enforcement in April 2022. Agents then visited Ms X’s address twice in May and once in June. They left paperwork each time and asked Ms X to make contact. Ms X failed to make contact, so an agent visited again on 22 January 2023.
51. TfL said it contacted the enforcement agency when Ms X complained. It is satisfied the agency acted correctly and saw no evidence Ms X changed her details with the DVLA. It said the last time the V5C registration document was updated was in 2018.
52. TfL believes the enforcement agency took the correct steps and were entitled to clamp Ms X’s car. The agency only charged Ms X for one enforcement visit, not four.
53. TfL said there was no evidence to support Ms X’s allegations of inappropriate behaviour by the agent.

Analysis

54. Ms X said she notified the DVLA about her temporary address in December 2021, and again when she applied for a new driving licence when she moved back to her usual address. It appears to me that Ms X only updated the DVLA for the purposes of her driving licence. I have seen no evidence Ms X also asked the DVLA to change the address on her V5C vehicle registration document. This is crucial, because this is the information TfL, or the Police, will search for when a motorist commits a traffic or parking offence.
55. I found TfL sent paperwork to the correct address of the registered keeper of Ms X’s car. It is Ms X’s responsibility to ensure those details are up to date. I have seen no evidence of fault by TfL in this regard.
56. I appreciate it was distressing for Ms X to receive a visit from an enforcement agent and have her car clamped. However, I have not seen evidence the enforcement agent acted unlawfully.
57. Guidance from the Ministry of Justice states enforcement agents should only work between 6am and 9pm. It also states they should be respectful of religious days and cultural events. However, the guidance does not say it is not permitted for enforcement agents to work on Sundays.
58. While the Government has plans to make it compulsory for enforcement agents to wear body camera’s, this has not happened yet. I therefore cannot say there was fault when the enforcement agent failed to use a body camera.
59. The enforcement agent was exercising a valid warrant from the Court, and they did not mislead Ms X about their powers. It was within their power to clamp Ms X’s car and to remove it if she did not pay the debt. The agent showed Ms X identification and I have seen evidence they completed the relevant paperwork for taking control of her car. They also issued a receipt for payment.
60. Ms X said the enforcement agent did not have paperwork about the debt. The agent says Ms X did not ask for it. On balance, I consider the agent did have the relevant paperwork. They completed a notice about taking control of Ms X’s car, and filled in a receipt for payment. They did this using the correct details and reference. The agent would not have been able to do so without access to the relevant information about the debt.
61. Ms X said she did not receive paperwork about the debt, or a breakdown of it. I found the enforcement agency sent Ms X two letters about the debt in April 2022. Both letters were sent to the correct registered keeper address held by the DVLA. The first letter provides a full breakdown of the debt, which is confirmed in the second letter. I have also seen evidence enforcement agents visited the correct registered address on three occasions before the debt was collected and left letters asking Ms X to pay or get in touch. If Ms X did not receive those letters that was not the fault of the enforcement agency.

Back to top

Final decision

62. I completed my investigation. There was no fault in the way the penalty charge notice was issued or enforced.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman