Summary: Mr X complained the Council and bailiffs acting on its behalf, wrongly enforced a Penalty Charge Notice for a traffic offence which was committed by a different person with the same name. We upheld the complaint. The Council will apologise, make a payment for the avoidable distress, inconvenience and time and trouble. The Council will also review its computer system.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council instructed bailiffs to enforce a penalty charge notice (PCN) against him despite it being issued to a different person with the same name. Mr X also complained the Council refused to take responsibility and blamed the bailiffs.
2. Mr X said the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress and time and trouble trying to resolve the matter. He said he had been repeatedly contacted about a debt that is not his and this caused anxiety, fear and disruption and a lot of time contacting the bailiffs and Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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).
5. The Council’s enforcement agents (bailiffs) are called Bristow and Sutor. They act on behalf of the Council when taking enforcement action in PCN cases. We can investigate them. I refer to them as ‘the bailiffs’ in this statement.
6. 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)
7. 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

8. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has the power to take enforcement action against a data controller for breach of one of the six principles in the Data Protection Act 2018. But it is not acting as a statutory tribunal if it does so. If a complainant believes there has been a breach, they may refer the case to the Commissioner. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint, even though he could raise it with the ICO. The ICO is not a full means of redress for Mr X though because he is seeking a payment to reflect his avoidable distress and time and trouble pursuing the matter and the ICO does not recommend this type of payment. And, the complaint is also about a bailiff’s actions enforcing a PCN, which is not a matter within the ICO’s remit.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

11. Our Principles of Good Administrative Practice set out our expectations of councils. We expect them to:
• Get it right. This includes providing effective services using appropriately trained and competent staff
• Be open and accountable.
• Put things right. This includes operating an effective complaints procedure and offering a fair and appropriate remedy when a complaint is upheld.

What happened.

12. The Council’s bailiffs contacted Mr X about an unpaid Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) in late November 2024. He received a copy of the papers and saw the PCN was issued to a person with the same name but a different address. He has never owned the car involved in the offence.
13. Mr X contacted the Council and was told there were no PCNs against him linked to any vehicle he owned.
14. Mr X complained to the Council. Its initial response said:
• It had not provided the contact details to the bailiffs
• It had asked the bailiffs to review the case
• It advised him to provide the bailiffs with any additional information to assist them with their review
• He needed to direct his correspondence to the bailiffs.
15. Since Mr X made his complaint to us, the Council has contacted him to explain its bailiff had made an error by pursuing him for the PCN. The Council apologised for this, confirmed Mr X was not liable for the PCN and that his personal details would be removed from the bailiff’s system under General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). The Council has also said the bailiff will be reviewing what went wrong in this case and delivering further training to its staff.
16. Despite the action the Council had taken, or said it would take, Mr X then received a copy of the same PCN by post. He complained again to the Council. Its response said:
• The Council had closed the PCN and then an order from the Traffic Enforcement Centre came through with an Order to revoke the Order for Recovery and Charge Certificate. This reopened the case and updated it with the address he had provided. This was a system issue.
• It was sorry for the distress, the case was now fully closed and he shouldn’t receive any more contact about it.
• It was an automated error and not malicious.
• The Council had recorded a data breach because the name of the person whose PCN it actually was had been disclosed to him and so their data had been breached.

Findings

17. I have identified three areas of fault causing avoidable distress, inconvenience and time and trouble:
1. The Council’s initial response to Mr X’s complaint (see paragraph 14) was inadequate. It did not accept responsibility for its contractor’s actions. The bailiffs were not acting independently of the Council – they were providing an enforcement service for it. The bailiffs pursued the wrong person due to inadequate checks. This was not in line with our Principles of Good Administration and was fault. The Council should have accepted responsibility for its contractor’s actions.
2. The Council’s later response (paragraph 15) was an improvement on the earlier one. However it was not an effective response as it should have offered a symbolic payment to Mr X for his avoidable distress, inconvenience and time and trouble. It was not in line with our expected standards and was fault.
3. The system generating a further PCN after a promise that the case had been closed. Again the Council’s system was ineffective and added to the injustice Mr X had already experienced.

Back to top

Agreed Action

18. Where we find fault with the actions of a contactor, we can make recommendations to the council alone. Here we have found fault with the bailiffs and make the following recommendations to the Council.
19. Within one month the Council will:
1. Apologise again for the avoidable distress, inconvenience and time and trouble. 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.
2. Make Mr X a symbolic payment of £150 to reflect the injustice.
3. Review its system to see whether the automatically generated PCN Mr X received (after being told the matter was closed) could be prevented or checked by staff and intercepted before being sent out. I recognise this is an uncommon scenario, but the Council needs to make sure its system is fit for purpose. Especially when the issue has already been the subject of an upheld complaint.
4. Provide evidence of the training delivered to staff referred to in the Council’s complaint response.
20. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the actions in the last paragraph.

Back to top

Decision

21. I find fault causing injustice.The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman