Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about enforcement of a Penalty Charge Notice because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council and bailiffs acting on the Council’s behalf have wrongly tried to recover a debt for a bus lane contravention, when he is a vulnerable individual and needed time to seek assistance before recovery action took place.
2. Mr Y says this has caused him significant upset and he is now expected to pay further fees unfairly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council issued Mr Y with a PCN in July 2022, sent to his previous address, as this was the address the vehicle was registered to with the DVLA. Mr Y later appealed to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) after he was initially contacted by bailiffs for non-payment of the penalty, to try to challenge the PCN.
6. The Council’s enforcement of the PCN was placed on hold by the Council until the decision of the TEC, which was to reject Mr Y’s application, was made. After the Council was notified of the TEC’s decision in August 2023, it instructed bailiffs to carry out recovery action to recover the debt.
7. The bailiffs contacted Mr Y, both by leaving a letter at his address, contacting him by text, calls and visits. There is no evidence that Mr Y informed the bailiffs or the Council of his vulnerability until after the charges had been made and several attempts to contact him had been made by the bailiffs. As neither were aware of Mr Y’s ill-health, it could not be considered, and we would be unlikely to find fault in its actions to pursue the debt and for the bailiffs to charge for this.
8. Further, the bailiff would only need to give a debtor adequate opportunity to obtain assistance and advice prior to the removal of goods, which as the bailiffs have not taken such action, would mean it would be unlikely we would find fault for its current pursual of the debt Mr Y owes. The Council has instead referred Mr Y to the bailiffs’ support team, to try to assist him now that it is aware he is potentially vulnerable. As there is not enough evidence of fault, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman