Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s escalation of a penalty charge notice. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court to file a late witness statement/statutory declaration. The Council’s enforcement agents accept it missed an opportunity to notify Mr X of the unpaid penalty charge notice but its actions, and those of the Council, are sufficient to remedy the injustice this caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council and its enforcement agents (bailiffs) did not follow the proper processes in pursuing him for payment of a penalty charge notice (PCN). In particular he says they ignored evidence showing he no longer lived at an address and did not issue a ‘notice of enforcement’ to his new address. Mr X was unaware of the PCN before the Council’s bailiffs visited him at his workplace and clamped his car.

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. 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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council issued Mr X a PCN and escalated the case in accordance with the statutory process up to the point it registered the unpaid PCN as a debt with the TEC and the bailiffs obtained a ‘warrant of control’ to pursue Mr X for payment. But Mr X did not receive the Council’s correspondence because he had moved. He accepts he delayed in notifying the DVLA of his change of address but says the Council had a record of his current address and was aware the letters it had sent had been returned and marked “NOT AT THIS ADDRESS.”
9. When the Council passed the case to its bailiffs they wrote to Mr X with a ‘notice of enforcement’. This set out the amount of the unpaid PCN and the bailiffs’ £75 compliance stage fee. But Mr X did not receive the notice of enforcement as the bailiffs sent it to his old address.
10. At the same time the bailiffs sent the notice of enforcement they also made an enquiry to the DVLA to check Mr X’s address for the purposes of enforcing the debt. The DVLA’s response provided Mr X’s current address but the bailiffs say this did not prove he had moved.
11. Unaware of the debt, Mr X did not pay or contact the bailiffs so they escalated the case to the enforcement stage. They then carried out a trace which again showed Mr X’s new address. But the bailiffs did not investigate this further and neither did they apply to alter the address on the warrant of control or reissue the notice of enforcement. Instead, using ANPR technology, the bailiffs located Mr X’s vehicle and attended to immobilise (clamp) it while it was parked on the public highway.
12. Mr X is unhappy the bailiffs did not follow the proper process and did not write to him at his new address before clamping his car. He says this caused him embarrassment and shame and made him feel guilty. He also says he spent vast amounts of time trying to resolve the issue with the Council and the bailiffs.
13. Because Mr X did not receive the Council’s correspondence about the PCN he was able to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement/statutory declaration. If the TEC had accepted his application it could have ordered the Council to take the process back to an earlier stage, reducing the amount of the penalty charge and removing the basis for the bailiffs’ fees. The amount payable would then have been £70 or £35, had the Council decided to re-offer the chance to pay at the discounted rate.
14. The bailiffs informed Mr X of his right to go to the TEC but Mr X did not consider it appropriate. He has made clear this is at least in part due to the fact the TEC could not provide him with compensation or damages and because he wanted to complain to us. Instead he pursued complaints with both the Council and the bailiffs and initiated a chargeback request with his bank.
15. Regardless of Mr X’s reasons the right to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement/statutory declaration provided a suitable alternative remedy for the escalation of the PCN and it would have been reasonable for Mr X to use it in this case. We would not therefore look to recommend a remedy for his time and effort to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case, as he could instead have gone to the TEC.
16. I appreciate Mr X remains concerned the bailiffs missed opportunities to identify his new address and to notify him of the debt before visiting and clamping his car. There is no specific right to challenge their failure to follow the proper processes but had Mr X made a successful application to the TEC it would have reduced the amount of the PCN and removed the basis for the bailiffs’ fees, as set out above.
17. Mr X believes he is entitled to compensation and damages for what happened but this is not the purpose of our remedies. Rather, where we find fault we look to put the person back in the position they would have been, had the fault not occurred. Only where we cannot do this would we recommend a financial remedy for any injustice caused.
18. In response to Mr X’s complaints the bailiffs acknowledged it failed to verify his new address and that as a result he did not receive a notice of enforcement; it therefore agreed to remove its enforcement and sale fees. This left the amount payable as £189 (£114 for the PCN and £75 for the enforcement agent’s compliance stage fee). This put Mr X back in the position he would have been, had the bailiffs undertaken further checks and issued Mr X a notice of enforcement to his new address. Mr X’s chargeback request was also accepted by his bank and he therefore received a full refund of the amount he paid. The Council has now agreed to accept payment of £35 in settlement of the case and this represents a substantial discount in the amount of the charges owed.
19. The fact the bailiffs visited Mr X when this may have been avoided resulted in an injustice of its own, but the bailiffs have agreed to pay Mr X £125 for the inconvenience caused by its actions. This is a significant remedy and it is sufficient for the injustice Mr X claims. It is therefore unlikely we would recommend anything more for Mr X, even if we were to investigate further.
20. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council and its bailiffs dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mr X to apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement/statutory declaration and the Council and its bailiffs have taken sufficient action to remedy Mr X’s injustice through their complaints processes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman