Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the contents of a ‘notice of enforcement’ issued by the Council’s enforcement agents. This is because the fault Mr X alleges did not cause him significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s enforcement agents (bailiffs) sent him a ‘notice of enforcement’ demanding payment for a penalty charge notice (PCN) within six days rather than the seven it should have given him. He says this caused him distress and anxiety and he felt pressured to pay immediately. He wants the Council to refund the £75 fee charged by the bailiffs.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
9. I understand Mr X is unhappy with the timescale given for payment but this did not cause him significant injustice. The £75 became payable following the issue of the notice of enforcement and is not the result of the fault Mr X claims.
10. Mr X says he did not receive any correspondence from the Council about the PCN so I can see why the notice caused him some distress and anxiety but I cannot say this was the result, solely, of the bailiffs demanding payment sooner than Mr X thinks it should.
11. Mr X may also apply to the TEC to make a late witness statement/statutory declaration on the grounds he did not receive the original PCN. If his application is successful the TEC may order the Council to take the process back to an earlier stage, reinstating Mr X’s right of appeal against the PCN and removing the basis for the bailiffs’ £75 fee.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the actions of the Council’s bailiffs did not cause Mr X significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman