Summary: Miss B complained about the actions of enforcement agents, employed by the Council, who removed and sold her car for an unpaid parking fine, without her knowledge. We have not found fault with the actions of the enforcement agents or the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss B complained that Lancashire County Council’s (the Council) enforcement agents did not communicate with Miss B from March 2022 or respond to her queries regarding the outstanding penalty charge notice (PCN). As a result, the enforcement agents sold her car without her knowledge. The Council also refused to respond properly to her complaint about the enforcement agents’ actions. This caused Miss B distress, inconvenience and financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Miss B and the Council 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

5. Miss B owned a car which her brother Mr C used. She owns Property X, Mr C lives in Property Y and their parents live in Property Z.
6. In February 2022 the Council referred a debt for an unpaid PCN (incurred by Mr C in April 2021) to the enforcement agents (the Bailiffs). The Bailiffs sent a notice of enforcement to Miss B at Property X as she was the registered keeper of the car. Mr C wrote a letter to the Council in Miss B’s name from Property X, saying he couldn’t afford to pay, the bailiffs were intimidating him, and he suffered with severe depression and anxiety. Miss B did not know about this letter.
7. The Bailiffs sent a second letter to Property X asking for the debt to be paid. On 15 March 2022 the Bailiffs visited Property X but there was no-one in. They sent a second letter the following day. The Council also forwarded the complaint letter from Mr C to the Bailiffs. The Bailiffs tried to call Miss B several times thinking the letter had come from her.
8. On 31 March 2022 they spoke to Miss B. She explained that the letter of complaint had come from her brother who had mental health issues. She had not been living in in the property for a while but had been staying with her parents in Property Z. She had recently found a lot of letters at the property regarding various debts her brother had incurred. She said she was willing to pay the original debt but needed time to sort everything out. The Bailiffs said the account was on hold until 27 May 2022 and suggested she contacted the Council as the debt was not hers and to let the Bailiffs know how she would pay. She confirmed her telephone and email and asked the Bailiffs to only correspond with her.
9. The Bailiffs sent a letter to Miss B at Property X on 9 May 2022 saying it was willing to remove all the fees and accept two instalments of £57 to clear the debt.
10. The Bailiffs did not receive any payment or further contact from Miss B. They tried to call the mobile number on the file on 31 May 2022 and left a message.
11. On 17 June 2022 the Council received a letter in Miss B’s name dated 15 June 2022 saying the Bailiffs were threatening, bullying and intimidating her. They had sworn at her and ordered her to make a payment. She said she was too afraid and upset to leave her home. The letter said to note her new correspondence address which was Property Y.
12. The Council replied to Miss B at Property Y on 22 June 2022. It said she should complain to the Bailiffs directly. It said the Bailiffs had advised they visited on 15 March but made no contact and tried to call on three further occasions in March but were unsuccessful. They agreed to place the case on hold and remove all fees but as they had not received any further contact, they removed the hold and again tried to contact her without success. Enforcement of the debt would continue.
13. The Council also informed the Bailiffs of Miss B’s new correspondence address and they changed their records.
14. The Bailiffs restarted enforcement action on 12 July 2022. They visited Property Y on 15 July 2022 and seized Miss B’s car, posting a letter at the property.
15. On 15 July 2022 the Council received another letter in Miss B’s name from Property Y dated 11 July 2022. The letter asked for details of the legislation relevant to the charge and for details of the fees removed by the Bailiffs. It also asked which mobile number the bailiffs had used.
16. On 19 July 2022 The Council replied to Miss B at Property Y, saying it would not be responding further and she should contact the Bailiffs. The Bailiffs sent a Notice of Removal to Miss B at Property Y on that day, advising her of how to pay in order to release the vehicle. The Bailiffs, having received no reply sent a Notice of Sale to Property Y saying that unless payment was received by 5 pm on 2 August 2022 the car would be sold at auction the following day.
17. The Bailiffs sent text messages to the number on file on 25 August, 25 September and 25 October 2022. They carried out a trace on Miss B and identified another address for her, which was Property Z. They sent a further text message on 27 November 2022 and then sold the car at auction on 4 December 2022 and sent a notification of the sale to Miss B at Property Z.
18. Miss B returned from abroad in January 2023 and discovered her car had been sold. She complained to the Council and the Bailiffs. She said neither agency had corresponded with her after the call on 31 March 2022 as she had requested, so she had not received any of the letters or notifications.
19. The Bailiffs responded on 21 March 2023 explaining all the action it had taken and the steps it had taken to contact her before the dale of the car. It did not uphold her complaint. The Council said it would not respond further and referred her to us.
20. Miss B complained to us.

Analysis

21. I sympathise with Miss B’s position, but I am unable to identify fault in the actions of the Bailiffs or the Council which caused Miss B an injustice.
22. The Bailiffs initially visited the property where the car was registered (Property X). It left letters and made several attempts to contact Miss B. After receiving a letter supposedly from her raising concerns about her mental health their welfare team made further attempts to contact her. At the end of March 2022, they spoke to her and established her brother had sent the letter and he had been unwell. They agreed with her to put a hold on the account and consider her request to just pay the original debt without the fees. They advised her to contact the Council and then let them know how she was going to pay.
23. They then wrote to Miss B at Property X on 9 May 2022 offering to accept two instalments to pay the debt and had removed its fees. This letter was Miss B’s address and the address she had requested they use for correspondence. So, it was reasonable for the Bailiffs to assume that Miss B had received this letter.
24. The Bailiffs gave Miss B three weeks to pay but having received no further contact they restarted enforcement action.
25. The situation was then complicated by the letters sent to the Council in June and July 2022 from Property Y in Miss B’s name. The Council had no reason to believe these were not written by Miss B and it then corresponded with her at this address and passed on the information to the Bailiffs who also then corresponded with her at this address. Miss B did not receive these letters and so had no knowledge of the continuing enforcement action on her car. However, I do not think fault by the Bailiffs or the Council was the cause of the injustice to Miss B: the misleading letters were the cause and it appears these were sent by a third party.
26. In spite of this, the Bailiffs still made significant effort to contact Miss B and delayed another four months before selling the car, tracing the third address for her.
27. I have also considered that Miss B could have made further contact with the Bailiffs following the telephone call on 31 March 2022. I note she said in her complaint that she had spoken to the Bailiffs in May 2022 but they refused to speak to her. However, the Council sent me recordings of all the calls the Bailiffs had with Miss B and this one was not included, so I am unable to reach a conclusion on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Miss B.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman