Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council illegally clamped the complainant’s car. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice, and there are other organisations better placed to deal with parts of the complaint. In addition, the Council provided a fair remedy for an error that did occur.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that bailiffs, acting for the Council, illegally clamped his car. This had a severe impact for which he wants an apology, cancellation of the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), and compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) (7), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council obtained a warrant from the court and asked bailiffs to collect an unpaid PCN. The bailiffs contacted Mr X. Mr X’s father sent an email to the bailiffs who sent an automated acknowledgement which said no action would be taken until they had responded.
5. A bailiff clamped Mr X’s car before a response had been said. When the bailiff became aware of this, he released the car. The car was clamped for less than 30 minutes.
6. Mr X says the clamping was illegal. He says the value of the car means it was exempt from clamping because he needed it for work. He also says the bailiffs and the Council breached data protection rules. Mr X says the event had a significant impact on his well-being. In his complaint Mr X asked the Council to cancel the PCN, pay compensation for the illegal clamping, and reimburse his time at his rate of £1000 an hour.
7. The Council denied it clamped the car illegally and explained why. It disputed Mr X’s car was exempt as a business tool and said he had not told the bailiff he needed it for work. The Council explained why it did not agree there had been a data breach.
8. The Council said, however, that there had been some confusion as to whether the account was hold. In recognition of this it recalled the debt from the bailiffs and cancelled the £310 fee. It offered Mr X a chance to pay the PCN but said that if he did not then bailiff action would resume. The Council says Mr X has not paid the PCN.
9. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons. Mr X says the clamping was illegal because the case was hold. We could not say if this made the clamping illegal, as that would be for a court to decide, but the Council provided a satisfactory response by recalling the case, cancelling the fees and giving Mr X another chance to pay the fine without incurring bailiff fees. In addition, while Mr X has suggested there were other issues which made the clamping illegal, this is something he would need the courts to decide. In addition, we could not decide if the value of his car was such that it should not have been clamped.
10. Mr X has referred to the impact the episode had on his wellbeing. I acknowledge it would have been stressful but the car was clamped for less than thirty minutes and does not represent a level of injustice that requires an investigation. In addition, as I have referred to, any injustice is mitigated by the withdrawal of the case from the bailiffs.
11. Mr X alleges the Council breached data protection rules. I will not investigate this part of the complaint because Mr X can complain to the Information Commission (ICO). It is reasonable to expect him to do this because the ICO is the correct organisation to consider complaints about data breaches.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice, the Council provided a satisfactory response, and because there are other organisations better placed to consider parts of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman