Surrey Heath Borough Council (24 007 445)

Category : Transport and highways > Parking and other penalties

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 18 Sep 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s enforcement agents clamping his car in 2022. This is because the complaint is late and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to complain to us sooner.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council’s enforcement agents (bailiffs) clamped his car in January 2022 for non-payment of a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued to his wife in 2020. He disputes the PCN but believes there was no legal basis for the bailiffs to clamp the car. He is also unhappy about the length of time it took the bailiffs to attend to remove the clamp.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Mr X was aware of the clamp when the bailiffs fitted it in January 2022; he says he provided evidence to the bailiffs at the time to show that he, rather than his wife, owned the car, but they refused to remove it. He contacted the Council in February 2022 but it did not remove the clamp so he took it off himself in April 2022.
  2. Mr X says he complained to the Council in October 2022 and chased it for a response in December 2022. But he did not then follow up his complaint until February 2024, two years after the incident had occurred.
  3. Because Mr X has been aware of the actions he complains about for more than 12 months his complaint is late. The Ombudsman has discretion to investigate late complaints but I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion in this case. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to complain to us at the time. We do not expect complainants to wait more than a year for a response to their complaint and given the amount of time that has passed since the incident occurred it is unlikely full evidence still exists in order for us to properly investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings