Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because Mr X has used his right to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case and the Council’s bailiffs have provided a suitable remedy for its delay in considering his vulnerability.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council did not respond to his appeal against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for failure to display a valid pay and display parking ticket. Mr X also complains about the conduct of the Enforcement Agent (bailiff) allocated to recover payment for the PCN.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is part of Northampton County Court. It considers applications from local authorities to pursue payment of unpaid PCNs and from motorists to challenge local authorities’ pursuit of unpaid PCNs.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and reviewed information provided by the Council. I have also considered the response provided to Mr X by the Enforcement Agency.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council issued Mr X a PCN for failing to correctly display a ‘pay and display’ parking ticket. Mr X disputes the PCN and says he appealed to the Council but it did not respond.
9. The Council escalated the case and registered the unpaid PCN as a debt with the TEC. It then passed the case to its bailiffs to recover payment, which added further costs.
10. Due to Mr X’s illness and an associated hospital stay, Mr X was not at his home address when the bailiff visited.
11. Mr X applied to the TEC to make a Witness statement because he did not think the Council had followed the proper process for escalating the PCN. The bailiffs put the penalty on hold while the TEC considered the application but the TEC ultimately refused it. This means the PCN stands.
12. I cannot investigate any complaint about the Council’s escalation of the case as the law prevents us from investigating any issue that has been the subject of court action.
13. Mr X complained to the Council about the conduct of the bailiff dealing with his case; in particular he complained the bailiff failed to take account of his illness, which makes him vulnerable. The bailiffs investigated the complaint and found that once they were made aware of Mr X’s illness they did take measures to put the case on hold to consider Mr X’s vulnerability. They found however that they should have conducted the vulnerability assessment within 3 days and did not do so. In recognition of this the bailiffs agreed to waive the enforcement fee if Mr X provided evidence of his illness. They also removed the bailiff from the case and apologised.
14. The bailiffs’ actions are sufficient to remedy any injustice caused by their delay in assessing Mr X’s vulnerability but they are now entitled to continue to pursue Mr X for payment. Mr X should therefore provide any evidence he has of his vulnerability to the bailiffs and if he experiences any further issues he may wish to raise a new complaint.

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has used his right to challenge the Council’s escalation of the PCN and the bailiff’s actions did not cause him significant enough injustice to warrant investigation. The bailiffs have agreed to consider Mr X’s vulnerability and to waive its enforcement fee and it is unlikely we would recommend anything more for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman