Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about unpaid Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s or its enforcement agents’ actions to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X received two Penalty Charge Notices (PCN’s) and says the Council was wrong to pass the unpaid debt to its enforcement agents because of his financial vulnerability. He also says the Council misused the complaints procedure to delay the process causing him further distress. Mr X’s car was removed during the debt recovery process and he would like it returned to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council told him his case was put on hold and he assumed the case would not be progressing while it is on hold.
6. However, the Council wrote to Mr X informing him the breathing space it had agreed temporarily had ended and so had the ‘restrictions on creditors contacting you about arrears/debts you owe’. The letter refers to the parking debt and signposted Mr X to the contact number for the parking team to arrange a payment plan. This was enough for Mr X to know that debt recovery would continue progressing, and any flexibility had stopped.
7. A month later the Council had not received payment or an offer so it passed the debt to its enforcement agents. This gave Mr X an extended period to make arrangements, but he did not. Therefore, I see no reason to criticise Council’s decision to send debt to its agents.
8. The enforcement agents then sent a Notice of Enforcement and Mr X contacted the Council about this. The Council told him the onus was on him to make arrangements and the extra time it had allowed does not make the PCNs invalid.
9. Mr X complained to the Council. Its agents sent a reminder compliance letter before clamping and removing Mr X’s car. Mr X says he believed the debt recovery process would be on hold whilst he went through the complaints procedure. There is no evidence the Council told him that, and it would not be acceptable for someone to use a complaints procedure to avoid the consequences of enforcement or recovery action. I also see no evidence of fault in the enforcement agent’s debt recovery actions.
10. The Council apologised for any delay in responding to complaints. We would not criticise the Council’s handling of the complaints procedure as it was unlikely to make any difference to the debt recovery process or cause Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The evidence shows the Council reached its decisions properly, so we would be unlikely to find fault in its actions and an investigation is not warranted.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman