Summary: Mr X complained about poor signage, which led to the Council issuing him with several Penalty Charge Notices. He also complained the Council’s enforcement agent’s behaviour was unreasonable and did not consider his vulnerability. We have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about poor signage and the Penalty Charge Notices as it was reasonable for him to have applied to the Traffic Enforcement Centre to reinstate his right of appeal. We find no fault with how the enforcement agent dealt with Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about poor signage, which led to the Council issuing him with several Penalty Charge Notices (PCN). He also complained the Council’s enforcement agent acted unlawfully by parking in front of a no parking sign and his behaviour was unreasonable and did not consider his vulnerability.
2. Mr X says he now lives in fear of the enforcement agent pursuing him for further fees.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (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.
6. 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).
7. 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)
8. 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

9. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about the poor signage which led to him receiving several PCNs. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to have applied to the TEC to make a late witness statement or statutory declaration (further information in paragraphs 15 to 18). He could have raised the issues about the poor signage during this process.
10. I have also not investigated Mr X’s complaint about the enforcement agent acting unlawfully and parking in front of a no parking sign. It did not cause Mr X a significant injustice as he was not trying to leave his property during the enforcement agent’s visit. When the enforcement agent visited a second time, Mr X was not at home.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. 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 guidance

13. If a motorist breaks parking rules, they might receive a fine. This fine is called a PCN.
14. The authority can issue a charge certificate which increases the fine by 50% if:

• the fine is not paid;
• the motorist does not appeal against the fine; or
• an appeal is not successful.

15. If the fine is still not paid, the authority can register the debt with the TEC at Northampton County Court. It can then ask enforcement agents to collect payment for the fine and agent’s costs.
16. The motorist can apply to the TEC to ask them to cancel the registration of the debt. They do this by filling in a witness statement or statutory declaration.
17. If the motorist is successful, the TEC might order the authority to go back to an earlier stage which will reduce the fine and they will not have to pay the enforcement agent’s costs. It might also give them back their right to appeal.
18. If the motorist is too late to make a witness statement they might be able to ask the TEC to look at their application ‘out of time’. If the TEC will not look at the application ‘out of time’ they might be able to ask them to review their decision.

Vulnerable debtors

19. Agents can recover their fees from the person who owes the council money.
20. An enforcement agent may not take control of goods if the debtor is a vulnerable person and they are the only person who is at the property when the agent visits.
21. Where the debtor is a vulnerable person, the enforcement stage fee cannot be recovered unless the agent has given the debtor enough opportunity to get help and advice about what is happening. (Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014)
22. The law does not set out what a vulnerable person is. National Standards explain what councils and enforcement agents must do.
23. If an agent identifies someone who owes money is vulnerable, they should tell the council and make sure they act lawfully. Agents should be aware that someone may be vulnerable but that this may not be immediately obvious. (Taking Control of Goods: National Standards and Enforcement Conduct Board standards)

The enforcement service’s policy on vulnerability

24. The enforcement service that acts on the Council’s behalf has a policy on vulnerability. The policy says enforcement agents should use their discretion and observation techniques to identify people who could be vulnerable.
25. Someone who is unemployed is not automatically vulnerable. The enforcement agent should use their common sense based on their observation of the person’s circumstances.

What happened

26. This chronology provides an overview of key events and does not detail everything that happened.
27. The Council issued Mr X with two PCNs in July 2023 for bus lane contraventions. The Council sent the PCNs to Mr X’s former address and so he did not receive them.
28. The Council registered the debt for one of the PCNs with the TEC. It instructed an enforcement service (Service A) to enforce the debt.
29. Service A contacted the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to check Mr X’s address. It then sent Mr X an enforcement notice in February 2024. This comprised of £189 (£114 debt and £75 compliance stage fee).
30. Mr X contacted Service A and asked for further information about the enforcement notice. Service A responded and confirmed the Council had instructed it to enforce the unpaid PCN. It said he could contact the TEC if he believed he had grounds to file a late witness statement.
31. Service A sent Mr X a reminder to settle the enforcement notice. It said if he paid within the next seven days, he could save himself the enforcement agent’s fee of £235.
32. Mr X emailed Service A and said the Council had sent the PCN to the wrong address. He said he was unemployed and in his overdraft. Therefore, he wanted to pay the standard fine of £35. Otherwise, he would appeal. Service A responded and said it had assigned an enforcement agent to collect payment. It told him to contact the enforcement agent to discuss repayment on the account. If he failed to contact him, he could be subject to further recovery. Mr X replied and agreed to contact the enforcement agent.
33. The enforcement agent visited Mr X at his home the following week. Mr X said he was unemployed and could not pay the full amount. The agent offered a payment plan of £100 per month. He said Mr X could phone the office about the payment arrangement.
34. Mr X called the office and decided to pay £200, rather than £100. The enforcement agent told Mr X he could contact the Council if he did not think the fees and payment arrangement was correct.
35. Mr X complained to Service A about the enforcement agent’s visit. He said the agent pressured him into paying £200. He also said it had added illegitimate fees, and it did not give him enough time to contact the enforcement agent and resolve the matter.
36. The Council contacted Mr X and explained he did not receive the PCNs because he changed address but did not update DVLA records. It reminded him of his right to contact the TEC.
37. Service A responded to Mr X’s complaint and said he had ample opportunity to resolve the matter before the enforcement agent visited him. It sent its first letter over three weeks before the enforcement agent’s visit. The enforcement agent was not threatening. However, he advised Mr X of the process if he refused to pay. He also agreed a payment plan after Mr X said he was unemployed.
38. Mr X raised further complaints about poor signage and Service A/the enforcement agent refusing to consider his vulnerability. The Council responded to the complaint and said the enforcement agent decided not to clamp his car because he is unemployed.

Back to top

Analysis

39. I have reviewed the video footage of the interaction between Mr X and the enforcement agent. I do not consider the enforcement agent’s conduct was unreasonable. He explained who he was and what his role was. He showed his identification when Mr X asked. When he thought Mr X was not going to pay, he explained what the process was which was to clamp his car. Mr X clarified he was going to pay, and therefore the agent agreed a payment plan. I do not find fault.
40. Enforcement agents are required to consider whether a debtor is vulnerable. However, if a debtor is vulnerable this does not mean that enforcement stops. It simply means that the enforcement fee is not recoverable until the agent has, before removing goods, allowed the debtor an opportunity to obtain assistance and advice.
41. The Council has explained Service A has information relating to debt advice and assistance on its website. Service A provided this information to Mr X on the enforcement notice and the reminder, and it recommended that he contact the enforcement agent to discuss payment. Service A also told Mr X about the process of filing a late witness statement with the TEC. The enforcement agent did not consider Mr X was vulnerable based on their interaction during the visit, specially as Mr X offered to pay. However, he took Mr X’s unemployment into consideration by offering a payment plan of £100 per month.
42. I agree with the Council’s view that Mr X had several weeks before the enforcement agent visited to seek advice and assistance and refer the matter to TEC. The information is on the correspondence from Service A. I therefore do not find fault.
43. It is also for the enforcement agent to take a view on whether a debtor is vulnerable. The enforcement agent did not consider Mr X was vulnerable and has explained why. That was a decision he was entitled to take, even if Mr X strongly disagrees. However, he considered Mr X’s unemployment by offering a payment plan rather than taking full payment. This was reasonable. I do not find fault.

Back to top

Final Decision

44. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman