Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his representations about five penalty charge notices (PCN’s) and the subsequent action the Council took to recover the debt. He complained the Council failed to take account of his personal circumstances and vulnerability when making its decisions. We found the Council and enforcement agents’ failure to properly explore Mr X’s claimed vulnerability before proceeding with enforcement was fault. This caused Mr X unnecessary distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment and take action to improve its service.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his representations about five penalty charge notices (PCN’s) and the subsequent action the Council took to recover the debt. He complained the Council failed to take account of his personal circumstances and vulnerability when making its decisions.

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. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review 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 use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
6. 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about the PCNs as they have been considered by the Traffic Enforcement Centre and Mr X had a right of appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. I can only consider the enforcement agent’s actions.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Mr X; and
• Mr X 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

Relevant law and guidance

The Council’s parking permit scheme

9. Residents whose address falls within a parking permit scheme can apply for resident permits. Applicants are required to provide supporting documents to confirm both their address and the vehicle ownership and pay an annual fee. The Council’s website advises that applications can take up to 15 working days to process.
10. Applicants will receive an email confirming their application has been processed and their permit is active. The Council suggests applicants use visitor permits while awaiting confirmation of their parking permit.

Penalty Charge Notice

11. If a council civil enforcement officer believes a parking contravention has occurred, they may fix a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) to the vehicle, give it to the person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle or post it to the owner’s home address.
12. If the person does not pay the PCN, the council can ultimately obtain a warrant from the courts to recover the debt. Councils often pass warrants to debt recovery and enforcement companies for recovery.

Enforcement of debt: fees

13. Enforcement agents follow a statutory procedure to recover the debt, as set out in The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013. The first stage is compliance, which involves any activity taken by the enforcement agents from when they accept the debt to when they take enforcement action. It includes notifying the person of the debt and giving them an opportunity to pay. Enforcement is any action from the first visit to a debtor’s home to the point when goods are removed. The disposal stage involves removal of the goods and their subsequent sale. At each stage the enforcement agent adds a fee, the amount of which is set out in law.

Enforcement of debt: control of goods

14. If someone does not contact the enforcement agent to arrange payment of the debt at the compliance stage, the agent will visit the person’s property to take payment or remove goods of sufficient value to cover the debt. This is called taking ‘control of goods’. An enforcement agent can only take control of goods belonging to the debtor, which are on the debtor’s premises or on the highway.

Enforcement of debt: vulnerable debtors

15. The law makes provisions to protect vulnerable debtors. It does not define what a vulnerable person is. The Ministry of Justice has issued ‘Taking Control of Goods: National Standards’ (“the National Standards”) which set out the responsibilities of creditors and bailiffs. The guidance says people in the following groups may be vulnerable but that the list is not exhaustive. Enforcement agents should assess each situation on a case-by-case basis:
• The elderly.
• People with a disability.
• The seriously ill.
• The recently bereaved.
• Single parent families.
• Pregnant women.
• Unemployed people.
• Those who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading English.
16. Regulations 10 of The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 says an enforcement agent may not take control of goods where a vulnerable person and/or a child is the only person present.
17. Regulation 12 of The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 says that the enforcement fee is not recoverable until the enforcement agent has, before removing any goods, given the vulnerable person adequate opportunity to get assistance and advice.
18. The Council’s policy says officers will employ flexibility and discretion when dealing with hardship, vulnerability or dispute situations. This includes the ability to make deferred payment arrangements or suspend recovery action due to the debtor’s circumstances.
19. The enforcement agents’ Customer Vulnerability document says all staff are trained to sensitively assess vulnerability and establish when a customer is in need of support.
20. It says the agency’s approach to vulnerability is in line with advice and guidance provided by the Taking Control of Goods: National standards and the Civil Enforcement Association code of practice.
21. Where vulnerability is identified by a member of staff they are trained to use specialist techniques to gain a better understanding of the vulnerability and limitations in a customer’s mental capacity to assist a referral to one of the agency’s specialist support teams.

What happened here

22. When Mr X moved to a new property in late September 2022 he applied online for a resident’s parking permit. While he was waiting for the permit to be processed Mr X placed a card on the dashboard of his vehicle with the date he purchased the permit and the reference number.
23. Mr X received PCN’s on 17 October, 19 October, 20 October, and 21 October for parking in a residents or shared use place without displaying a valid permit, voucher or ticket.
24. Having spoken to a traffic warden, Mr X then visited the Council offices and was given a book of visitors permits and was refunded a £5 overpayment. Mr X incurred a further PCN during this visit on 25 October 2022 for parking without payment.
25. Shortly after this Mr X moved to a new property. He says he advised the Council of his new address and explained he had purchased a parking permit and should not have received any PCNs.
26. As Mr X did not pay the fines the Council sent Mr X Notices to Owner and Charge Certificates in respect of each PCN.
27. Mr X wrote to the Council in early January 2023, returning the PCN documents which he asserted were unlawful and extortionate. Mr X noted he had previously explained to the Council that he had purchased a parking permit and had left a note on his car which officers had ignored. He told the Council he was seriously ill. Mr X refused to pay the fines and asserted the courts would take a dim view of the Council’s actions.
28. The Council cancelled the first PCN as a gesture of good will but rejected Mr X’s representations in relation to the remaining PCNs. It advised there were insufficient grounds to offer discretionary cancellation. The Council said it was the motorist’s responsibility to ensure they were aware of any restrictions on parking before leaving their vehicle. It also noted that a permit is only valid when this has been completed and shows on the permit system.
29. As the charges remained unpaid, the Council wrote to Mr X advising it would now register the penalty charge as a debt at the County Court. This would increase the amount due. The Council said the court would authorise the issue of a Notice of Enforcement and a Warrant of Execution to enforcement agents.
30. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) issued Orders for Recovery in respect of two of the PCNs. Mr X wrote to the TEC in early April 2023. He provided copies of his correspondence with the Council and evidence he had purchased a parking permit. Mr X also told the TEC he was unwell and had had a mental breakdown. And that he did not have the money to pay the fines.
31. The TEC advised Mr X it could not comment on whether the charge was valid or on the representations he had made. It advised Mr X his options were to appeal by filling in the witness statement, pay the amount outstanding or if he believe the charge had been paid to contact the Council.
32. The TEC subsequently issued warrants of execution in relation to the two PCNs which the Council passed to its enforcement agents. The agents then issued Notices of Enforcement on 12 May 2023. This increase each debt by a further £75. The Notices informed Mr X that if he did not pay by 25 May 2023 an enforcement agent would visit and take his belongings.
33. Enforcement agents visited Mr X’s property in early June 2023 to collect the debt. Mr X says this was a shock to him and he showed the agent evidence of his medical conditions. Mr X says the agent ignored this evidence and threatened to take his possessions so he had to borrow money to pay the enforcement agent. Mr X asserts the enforcement agent should have left when they were informed Mr X was ill. He asked the Council to return the £553 he was intimidated into paying.
34. The Council advised Mr X that as he had now paid the PCNs there was no further form of appeal. The Council said the PCN was correctly issued, it had accepted payment and the case was now closed.
35. The Council advised Mr X his representation on the other two PCNs were out of time. As the TEC had also issued Orders for Recovery in respect of these PCNs, the Council told Mr X his options were to pay the full amount or complete and return a witness statement to the TEC.
36. Mr X continued to dispute the PCNs. He asked for his concerns to be reviewed at a senior level and reiterated that he had bought a parking permit and displayed details in his car. Mr X also asserted the Council had set a precedent by cancelling the first PCN and should have cancelled all five. He asked the Council to return the £553 he had paid to the enforcement agent, who he described as large, threatening and intimidating and said the agent had ignored his poor health.
37. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in December 2023 and noted it had issued four PCNs for parking without a resident’s permit. The PCN issued 17 October 2022 had been cancelled as a gesture of goodwill. The PCN on 19 October 2022 had been paid. And the PCNs issued 20 and 21 October 2022 remained outstanding.
38. The Council stressed that the first PCN was cancelled as a gesture of good will and did not in any way set a precedent. It also noted the PCN issued on 25 October 2022 when Mr X parked without payment at the Council’s offices had been paid.
39. It said the two outstanding cases must be paid and that there had been no procedural impropriety. The Council also noted Mr X’s poor health conditions and wished him a speedy recovery.
40. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked for his complaint to be considered further. He disputed the first PCN had been cancelled as a gesture of good will. And asserted the Council had breached the law in pursuing him and instructing enforcement agents to pursue him for payment when he was very sick and vulnerable.
41. In its response the Council reiterated that Mr X received PCNs as there was no valid permit and that he was liable for the outstanding PCNs. It told Mr X the PCNs had now passed to enforcement agents as he had not responded to previous notices about them.
42. Mr X remained dissatisfied and wrote to the enforcement agents in February 2024. He said he had suffered a mental breakdown in September 2022 and had a number of medical conditions. Mr X complained an enforcement agent had turned up at his home threatening to take his life’s possessions and ignored the fact he was seriously ill. He asked the agency to refund the £533 he had paid.
43. The enforcement agency says it did not receive any correspondence from Mr X in February 2024.
44. Mr X also sought assistance from his MP. Then in April 2024 Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage three of the complaints process. He enclosed a copy of his letter to the enforcement agents and asserted the agent who attended his property had broken the Taking Control of Goods Regulations. Mr X also provided a letter from his GP confirming his medical conditions.
45. The Council responded in late June 2024. It again reiterated that Mr X had received the PCNs because his vehicle was parked without a permit. It referred to information on its website about applications for parking permits and its advice to adhere to parking restrictions while waiting for a permit to become active. The Council also explained the appeal process is determined by statute and the Council does not have unlimited leeway.
46. Mr X remained unhappy and again asked for the immediate cancellation of all the PCNs and a full refund of the monies he had paid. Mr X also wrote to the enforcement agency as he had received demands for payment of the two outstanding PCNs. He referred to his earlier correspondence in which he had raised concerns about the agent unlawfully gaining access and ignoring his mental health condition. Mr X asked the agency to refund the £553 he had paid.
47. The enforcement agency responded and advised Mr X it acted under a Warrant of Control. As such they were fully authorised to attend his address and its actions could not be considered trespass, illegal or harassing activity.
48. Since complaining to the Ombudsman Mr X has paid the two outstanding PCNs to avoid any further contact by the enforcement agents.
49. In response to my enquiries the Council says it cancelled the first PCN as it accepted Mr X believed displaying a card with his permit details on them was sufficient. It said the cancellation was not because the information Mr X supplied led officers to believe Mr X was a vulnerable individual.
50. When further PCNs were accrued the Council advised Mr X he would have to follow the correct procedure for appealing PCNs. The Council says Mr X actively pursued his argument that the PCNs had been incorrectly issued through various means, but did not engage with the statutory process.
51. The enforcement agency no longer has the body worn camera footage of the first visit as it is outside their retention period. The agency says the Council had not informed it of Mr X’s health conditions when instructing them. And that its agent was not informed of any health concerns during their visit to Mr X in June 2023. It says this information was received after Mr X had paid the PCNs but was not passed to its welfare team or flagged on the second case.
52. The enforcement agency has provided footage from the body worn camera following the second visit. This does not show the agents interaction with Mr X but records that contact was made via an intercom and payment was refused. There is no reference to a discussion of Mr X’s medical conditions or vulnerability.

Analysis

53. The Council followed the correct process when it issued the PCNs and pursued enforcement action. We have therefore not considered the matter further as the charges were properly applied and Mr X owed the debt. Mr X could have challenged these charges through the statutory process.
54. The law on enforcement includes provisions intended to ensure that enforcement agents treat vulnerable people with more care and consideration. The guidance set out in the National Standards also lists groups of people who may be vulnerable. 
55. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether Mr X was vulnerable. That is the role of the Council and the enforcement agents, taking into account the law and guidance, its policies and the specific circumstances of the case.
56. Mr X told the Council in January 2023 that he was seriously ill and was in fact dying. There is no record of whether, or how the Council explored Mr X’s claimed vulnerability. The Council says the decision to cancel the first PCN was not because officers believed Mr X was a vulnerable individual. But it is unclear what consideration the Council did give to Mr X’s health.
57. The Council did not inform the enforcement agents of Mr X’s reports of ill health when it instructed them to recover the debt.
58. Mr X and the enforcement agents have differing accounts of what was discussed at the visit in June 2023. Mr X says he provided the agent with evidence of his medical condition, while the agent says they were not informed of any health conditions during the visit.
59. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened. We cannot accept one person’s word against another.
60. The enforcement agency’s data retention policy means it no longer has the body worn camera footage of the visit, so I am unable to confirm what was said, or the tone used.
61. It is clear from the documentation available that Mr X provided the Council with further details of his medical conditions and a copy of his doctor’s certificate confirming he was unfit to work in August 2023. In his request to progress to stage three of the complaints procedure in April 2024 Mr X provided a copy of a letter from his GP dated March 2024. This letter confirmed his medical conditions.
62. I have not received any records of how the Council considered this information or Mr X’s vulnerability. The Council did not share details of Mr X’s medical conditions with the enforcement agents when it subsequently instructed them to collect the outstanding PCN debts.
63. The enforcement agents acknowledge they became aware of Mr X’s medical conditions after the first visit, but did not pass this information to its welfare team and it was not flagged on the second case.
64. The Council and enforcement agents failure to properly explore Mr X’s claimed vulnerability before proceeding with enforcement was fault. If they had done so, this may have avoided some of the distress Mr X experienced during the enforcement visit.

Back to top

Agreed action

65. The Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X for the distress he experienced as a result of the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• pay Mr X £150 in recognition of the distress he experienced as a result of the fault identified.
• remind relevant staff, including those employed by its enforcement agents, that they need to consider vulnerability promptly, record any decisions and clearly coordinate action between the Council and the enforcement agent.
66. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

67. The Council and enforcement agents’ failure to properly explore Mr X’s claimed vulnerability before proceeding with enforcement was fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman