Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of an enforcement agent employed by the Council to recover unpaid parking penalty debts. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice to the complainant to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council employing an enforcement agent (bailiff) to recover unpaid debts for parking penalty notices. He says the agent used underhand tactics to gain access to his home and that his son was intimidated by the things he told Mr X’s partner would happen should the debt not be paid. He says the Council should admit the agent’s failures and pay 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the enforcement agency’s response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says an enforcement agent visited his home and was allowed entry by his partner. She says that the agent waited until her young son came home before he left his vehicle and made the visit. She says her son was traumatised by the event in which the agent told her that he had powers to remove possessions if the debt was not paid.
6. Some of the allegations made about the agent were actions which are a normal part of the bailiff distraint process. This included showing her the warrant on a tablet, giving a resale value for goods at auction rather than the original cost or value and refusing offers of goods which cannot be resold.
7. Mr X says the agent did not use the path to the house and waited until his son came home. The agent’s employer says the bodycam footage contradicts this claim and that he was doing paperwork in his vehicle. As the agent used the entrance door to the property in any case and the child was not the subject of the debt recovery it is unlikely that this would have any bearing on the recovery procedure which the agent followed.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of an enforcement agent employed by the Council to recover unpaid parking penalty debts. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice to the complainant to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman