Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an enforcement agent telling a third party during an enforcement visit they were tracking him. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains an enforcement agent told a third party during an enforcement visit they were tracking him, and this was why they knew he was not at home.

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 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 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council issued a penalty charge notice to Mr X’s vehicle. Mr X had appealed but the appeal was refused. As Mr X failed to pay the penalty charge within the time limit set, the Council registered the penalty charge notice as a debt and passed it to an enforcement agency.
6. The enforcement agent visited Mr X’s property. There is body worn video footage of this visit. The Council said the footage showed the enforcement agent spoke to a third party during the visit and confirmed they had a warrant to be at the property. The enforcement agent also explained their reasons for being there and confirmed Mr X’s vehicle could be clamped. The Council said the footage also showed both the enforcement agent and third party tried to contact Mr X unsuccessfully by phone.
7. The statement Mr X considers evidences the enforcement agent had confirmed he was being tracked is: “yeah, we just tried, we just done a trace on him”. The Council explained this comment about a trace was regarding tracing a telephone number for Mr X. The Council confirmed the enforcement agent did not trace Mr X’s physical whereabouts or movements.
8. I have reviewed the video footage Mr X sent us. This video footage is a short clip of the body worn video footage. In it, the enforcement agent can be heard saying they had just run a trace on Mr X.
9. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. While I appreciate Mr X’s concerns, the Council has explained what the phrased used by the enforcement agent meant. The use of the term ‘trace’ is also commonly used within the enforcement sector to refer to searches completed for the individual on the databases the enforcement agency has access to. This is usually to obtain a current contact number or address of the individual. Further, there is no other supporting evidence to suggest Mr X was physically tracked by the enforcement agent.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman