Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council instructed enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover payment for a penalty charge notice (PCN) she had already paid. She also complains the bailiffs visited her property while her 17-year-old son was at home and threatened to seize their vehicle.

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. (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 Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X paid £25, which was the discounted rate for the PCN, on 27 May 2025. She says she made the payment after the Council refused to accept her informal challenge to the PCN, although she accepts her payment was after the due date given in the Council’s correspondence. She says the Council accepted her payment and that this “constituted an acknowledgement of settlement of the debt in question.”
6. The Council has explained that at the point Mrs X made the payment, the amount owed was considerably more than £25. It accepted her payment towards this debt, but it did not settle it. It says she had missed the deadline to settle the case at the discounted rate by nearly four months and that further costs, including bailiffs’ fees, had been added to the amount owed before she made the payment.
7. The Council is not obliged to waive the outstanding amount owed by Mrs X simply because she made a payment towards it. The Council registered the PCN as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court and the TEC confirmed the amount of the payment due. Because Mrs X did not pay, it then instructed bailiffs to recover payment from her and, because she did not pay the full amount owed, the bailiffs visited her property to obtain payment. Each stage of the process added additional costs and while Mrs X feels these are disproportionate to the amount of the original PCN, the costs are all in line with the relevant legislation. We cannot therefore say the Council was at fault for escalating the case and adding the additional costs to her debt, or for refusing to accept her payment in settlement of the debt.
8. Mrs X is also unhappy the Council’s bailiffs visited her property while her son was present, and that they threatened to remove their vehicle if they did not receive full payment of the outstanding amount owed. She says her son is a minor and was distressed and traumatised by the bailiffs’ visit.
9. The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 set out the circumstances in which bailiffs may not take control of goods. Regulation 10(1)(b) says bailiffs may not take control of goods where “a child or vulnerable person… is the only person present in the relevant or specified premises in which the goods are located…”
10. However, Regulation 2 states a “”child” means a person under the age of 16…” and Mrs X confirms her son is 17. The bailiffs were therefore entitled to inform him that it would take control of their vehicle in the event the debt was not paid, and to do so if they did not receive payment. I can therefore find no fault by the Council on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman