Summary: Mr X complained the Council and its enforcement agents charged him fees they should not have done when his vehicle was removed due to unpaid Penalty Charge Notices. We found fault because Mr X paid two enforcement fees when he should only have been charged for this once. This caused Mr X avoidable distress and frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Council will apologise, refund the fee and issue a reminder to relevant staff and its third-party enforcement agents.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s third-party enforcement agent charged him fees it should not have done when it removed his vehicle due to outstanding penalty charge notices.
2. Mr X says this has caused him distress and frustration and has affected his finances.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have not investigated any matters relating to alleged damaged caused to Mr X’s vehicle during its removal and return. This would be a matter for insurers or the courts to consider.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
7. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Penalty charge notices

8. If a motorist breaks parking or moving traffic rules, they might receive a fine. This fine is called a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
9. The motorist has 28 days from the date of the notice to pay the fine or ‘make representations’ against it.
10. The authority (in this case the Council) 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
• the appeal is not successful.
11. If the fine is still not paid, the authority can register the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court. The authority can then ask enforcement agents (bailiffs) to collect payment for the fine and the bailiff’s costs.

Enforcement agents

12. The main legislation governing enforcement agents is the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (‘the Act’) and The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and 2014. I refer below solely to the 2014 version of the Regulations and later in this statement as ‘the Regulations’.
13. Regulation 8 states the enforcement agent can recover the cost of storing goods which have been taken into control and removed from the premises or highway, provided the costs are reasonably and actually incurred.
14. Regulation 11 states that:
• the enforcement agent may recover the compliance stage fee for each of the enforcement powers in place (in this case PCNs);
• only one enforcement fee may be charged regardless of enforcement powers in place: and
• the enforcement agent must, as far as practicable, minimise the amounts recoverable from the debtor under the Regulations.

What happened

15. Mr X had received four PCNs from councils in the area, all linked to his vehicle. One PCN was issued by the Council complained of here. All four PCNs were sent to the same third-party enforcement agency, Company J, to enforce and recover the costs involved.
16. In October 2024, Company J identified Mr X’s vehicle whilst in the area. It clamped the vehicle and later removed it. It moved the vehicle to a vehicle transporter located around three and a half miles away. The procedure used was for Company J to wait until the transporter was full with other vehicles which had been removed. Once full, the transporter would then deliver vehicles to a storage site in North London.
17. On the same afternoon as his vehicle was removed, Mr X paid the fees set out by Company J. His vehicle was still on the transporter waiting for it to fill with other vehicles. After he had paid, Company J released his vehicle from the transporter and returned it to him at the same location it had been clamped and removed from.
18. At the end of October 2024, Mr X complained to the Council. He alleged Company J had damaged his vehicle when it was towed away, which is not part of this investigation. Part of his complaint was about the fees charged by Company J. Mr X was unhappy because he thought he had been charged for the vehicle being impounded when it had never entered any impound or storage site.
19. The Council’s response did not specifically mention the charging issue but said both it and Company J had complied with all processing regulations and due processes. It did not uphold his complaint.
20. Mr X complained directly to Company J and it sent him a complaint response in mid-November 2024. It said it had carried out its activities in line with relevant law and regulations.
21. Mr X escalated his complaint with the Council to stage two of its process in December 2024 and received a stage two response from the Council at the end of February 2025. The Council said it was satisfied the original complaint was properly investigated and that further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. It signposted Mr X to us.

Fees paid by Mr X

22. Mr X paid various fees linked to the PCNs in question. He paid the original fine for each of the four PCNs themselves, and a compliance fee of £75 for each PCN.
23. Mr X also paid two enforcement fees at £235 each, one for the Council concerned in this complaint and one for another council.
24. He also paid a sale/disposal fee of £110 and a storage fee of £21.60.

Analysis

25. A compliance fee can be charged for each liability order in place, in this case, each of the four PCNs. This is in line with the Regulations. There was no fault on the Council’s part for Mr X being charged £75 for this linked to the PCN it issued.
26. In the circumstances of this complaint, Company J was entitled to charge only one enforcement fee of £235. This is because it was able to enforce all four outstanding fines on the same occasion. Mr X being charged two enforcement fees was therefore incorrect and against the Regulations. This is fault. It caused Mr X distress and frustration. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.
27. In his complaint to it, Mr X questioned the Council about whether he should have been charged ‘impound’ fees as his vehicle never entered any storage facility. In response to my enquiries the Council said the removal was conducted in accordance with the Act and both sets of Regulations mentioned in paragraph 12.
28. In the circumstances of this complaint, the Council has chosen to interpret Regulation 8 to apply to Mr X’s vehicle being removed from the highway and to be secure on the transporter whilst awaiting transport to a storage compound. It has charged the storage fee on this basis. I am satisfied, that in the absence of more specific guidance, this was a reasonable stance for the Council to take. On this basis, I do not find fault with a storage fee being charged.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council will take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• apologise to Mr X for the identified injustice;
• refund the duplicated £235 enforcement fee; and
• issue guidance to relevant officers and Company J that only one enforcement fee should be charged if enforcing multiple PCNs at the same time.
30. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
31. Payments made are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman