Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions relating to an unpaid penalty charge notice she received and the removal of her car. We found fault because the Council lacked appropriate oversight and allowed the case to drift. This caused Ms X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council suggested a remedy of an apology, cancellation of all fees and the return of her impounded car. We are satisfied this is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X. The Council has now agreed to carry the remedy out.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the actions of the Council and its enforcement agents when they removed her car due to an unpaid penalty charge notice (PCN). Ms X says the charges to store the car have increased at a significant rate and the Council did not take account of her individual circumstances and vulnerabilities when continuing to store it.
2. Ms X says this has caused avoidable distress and frustration. She says that being deprived of her car has affected her health, wellbeing and ability to work.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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

6. My investigation begins when Ms X’s car was removed in September 2024 after she did not pay an earlier PCN.
7. I have not investigated any matters related to the original PCN or matters linked to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) process and the Council’s engagement with this. Matters related to the TEC process are not something we can investigate. Other matters were brought to us late and I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate them now.
8. My investigation ends when Ms X brought her complaint to us late in August 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I have considered all the information Ms X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
10. Ms 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

Fines for breaking moving traffic rules

11. If a motorist breaks moving traffic rules, they might receive a fine. This fine is called a PCN.
12. The authority (in this case the Council) will send the notice to the person who appears to own the vehicle (usually the registered keeper) by post. The notice will show the fine amount and how to appeal.
13. The motorist has 28 days from the date of the notice to pay the fine or ‘make representations’ against it.
14. If the authority rejects the appeal, the motorist can appeal.  
15. The authority 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.

16. If the fine is still not paid, the authority can register the debt with the TEC at Northampton County Court. The authority can then ask enforcement agents (the agents) to collect payment for the fine and the agent’s costs.

Warrant of control

17. A warrant of control is a court order that allows enforcement agents to visit a debtor’s home or business to take control of goods to pay off a debt owed as well as any court costs and fees.

Out of Time Witness Statements

18. The TEC also processes ‘Out of Time Witness Statements/Statutory Declarations’.
19. This process is for the keeper to attempt to get the order for recovery of costs related to the unpaid PCN and the charge certificate removed.
20. If the TEC refuses the application, the keeper can apply to the courts for a review of the TEC’s decision.
21. The keeper must then make an N244 application for the court to consider the challenge.

Breathing Space

22. Breathing Space is a debt respite scheme. It gives legal protection from creditors taking action against debtors for 60 days.
23. This means that most enforcement action, contact from creditors, interest and charges linked to the debt stop for 60 days.
24. A notification is sent to any creditors to advise Breathing Space has begun and when the period will end.

What happened

25. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.

Background and context

26. Ms X received a PCN in September 2023 after a moving traffic contravention in August 2023.
27. In June 2024 and after receiving documentation about the PCN, Ms X complained to the Council that she had not received the original PCN in the post.
28. Following further communication, the Council issued a stage one complaint response to her in mid-June 2024. This said a charge certificate had been issued for her PCN and that she could pay the balance or wait for the order for recovery which would be sent by the TEC.
29. The order for recovery was sent at the beginning of July 2024. This said Ms X should either pay £205 or file an out of time statutory declaration (the declaration) with the TEC.
30. A warrant of control was issued on 22 August 2024.
31. Ms X chose to approach the TEC rather than pay the outstanding fees. Ms X sent her forms to the TEC in August 2024 and said she had never received the original PCN due to postal issues in her local area.
32. A warrant of control was issued on 22 August 2024 and the case was sent to the agents to enforce.
33. By 24 September 2024, Ms X’s debt increased from £205 to £515 due to compliance and enforcement fees added to the case.

Removal of Ms X’s car

34. My investigation begins when the agents clamped Ms X’s car early on the morning of 25 September 2024. The agents advised Ms X to pay the outstanding fees in full, or her car would be towed away. When Ms X did not pay the fees, the agents removed her car to an external storage depot later that day. This then added to towing fee to the charges owed. Storage was then charged at £30 per day.
35. On 1 October 2024, the agents emailed Ms X to say they intended to sell her car to recover the amount owed which was now £647.
36. Ms X complained to the Council on 7 October 2024. Ms X said she had submitted the declaration to the TEC but this had not yet been processed. Ms X explained some of her financial difficulties, health concerns and what she considered were her vulnerabilities.
37. By 11 October 2024, the Council confirmed the declaration had been submitted and confirmed by the TEC. The Council placed enforcement on hold. Storage charges continued to build up.
38. Following further communications with Ms X, the Council issued its final complaint response on 16 December 2024. The Council confirmed enforcement was still on hold pending the TEC decision about Ms X’s statutory declaration. It signposted Ms X to us.
39. On 18 December 2024, The TEC refused the declaration made by Ms X. The Council restarted enforcement action. The agents emailed Ms X on 10 January 2025 to say that if she did not pay £3325 by 13 January, it would sell her car to recover fees owed.
40. Ms X emailed the agents and the Council back later that day to say she had submitted an N244 to the court to challenge the TEC’s decision not to allow the declaration to be considered.
41. In mid-February 2025, the Council emailed the agents to say it was investigating matters further. The agents paused enforcement action whilst awaiting the Council’s decision.
42. The court dismissed Ms X’s application on 19 May 2025 but enforcement action remained on hold. Early in June, Ms X’s case then entered the ‘Breathing Space’ scheme. Breathing Space ended on 10 August 2025.
43. Ms X emailed the Council and the agents on 15 August 2025 saying she had appealed the court’s May 2025 decision by submitting a second N244 application. Ms X sent the Council a copy the application paper she said she had submitted which was dated July 2025. The application was not signed.
44. The Council’s warrant of control for Ms X’s car expired on 22 August 2025. The Council continued to store Ms X’s car and build up charges of £30 per day storage. Ms X brought her complaint to us at the end of the month.

After the period of my investigation

45. In October 2025, Ms X advised the Council the courts had said there was a backlog of cases and there was no confirmed hearing date for her latest N244 challenge.
46. On 17 March 2026, the Council moved the car from the external storage service where it had been held since September 2024. At this time, the combined fees on the case were at nearly £17,000. The Council then stored the car at its own storage depot with a charge of £55 per day.
47. In May 2026, Ms X told us she had still not had a court date for her second N244 application.
48. By 8 June 2026, combined fees were listed at £21,500.

Analysis

Ms X’s vulnerabilities

49. I asked the Council how it had made the decision Ms X’s claimed vulnerabilities did not warrant any change in approach for her case. In response, the Council said vulnerabilities were considered on a case-by-case basis and in line with relevant guidance.
50. The Council confirmed that in Ms X’s case the officer had made the decision her vulnerabilities were not sufficient to meet the criteria for vulnerability in a way that would have affected the enforcement approach.
51. However, the Council also said there were no available records to show its consideration or rationale for reaching the decision it had. The Council said evidence showed Ms X had mentioned her vulnerabilities in October 2024 and January 2025 and that although Ms X provided financial information, there was no evidence of this being assessed or a payment plan being discussed with her. The Council said it accepted it could have done more to resolve matters despite the fact there was limited engagement from Ms X about her vulnerabilities.
52. Not recording its rationale for decision making or assessing documentation when it was sent in is fault. This caused Ms X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Progressing the case

53. In my enquiries, I asked why the agents had not sold Ms X’s vehicle when they said they would in both October 2024 and January 2025.
54. The Council explained it could have progressed matters by selling the car when auction approval had been granted in October 2024. However, this was only a two-day window of time as the case had been put on hold when the TEC had confirmed Ms X had submitted her statutory declaration, so the car was not sold.
55. The Council said that the sale in January 2025 did not proceed as enforcement action was placed on hold pending the Council’s investigation of the case after Ms X said she had submitted an N244 application.
56. The Council confirmed its clearest opportunity to progress the case was a 16-day window in May and June 2025. This was because Ms X’s N244 application had been dismissed and there were no other legal or breathing space related restrictions in place.
57. The Council also confirmed it had an 11-day window when it could have progressed matters after Breathing Space had expired on 8 August and before the warrant of control expired on 22 August 2025. It said the timely enforcement and progression of the case was likely affected by the closure of its in-house enforcement service (the agents) and subsequent transfer of the case to another enforcement agency.
58. Whilst I acknowledge Ms X’s preference would have been the return of her car, the Council allowed matters to drift by not taking decisive action or reassessing the case when it was clear there were no restrictions in place for the car to be sold or other action to be taken.
59. Instead, the Council took no action and storage charges for the car continued to build. This was fault. It caused avoidable distress and frustration for Ms X. I consider that whilst Ms X suffered avoidable injustice, this is not ongoing due to the Council’s remedy offer which is discussed below. I have recommended an apology below for the injustice caused.

Storage charges during breathing space

60. The Council should not have allowed storage of Ms X’s car to be charged during her 60-day Breathing Space. In response to my enquiries, it confirmed storage had been charged.
61. Allowing for storage to be charged during Breathing Space was fault. This caused avoidable distress and frustration for Ms X. I consider that whilst Ms X suffered avoidable injustice, this is not ongoing due to the Council’s remedy offer which is discussed below. I have recommended an apology below for the injustice caused.

Ms X’s second N244 application

62. Ms X says she submitted a second N244 in July 2025. She advised the Council of this on 15 August 2025.
63. The Council has confirmed that it did not receive any formal notification from either the TEC or the courts that Ms X had submitted the application at any time.
64. In my conversations with Ms X in May 2026, she was unsure of the date she had formally submitted her second N244 application and said she had not heard any more about it.
65. In any event, whether Ms X had formally submitted a second N244 is immaterial as the Council’s warrant of control expired soon after Ms X originally said she had submitted it and the Council had no powers to sell the car.

Expired warrant of control

66. A warrant of control is generally valid for 12 months. In Ms X’s case, this expired on 22 August 2025. This meant the Council or any enforcement agent acting on its behalf no longer had the ability to lawfully sell the car without a valid warrant. By the end of the warrant of control, I calculate total costs owing to be approximately £8,900.
67. In response to my enquiries, the Council said enforcement action had been paused as Ms X had said there was a second N244 underway and so it had continued to store the car pending this outcome, which would have been after the end of my investigation.
68. The Council said that when the warrant of control had expired this was not fully reflected in the ongoing management of the case. It said it could have used this opportunity to decide whether it was still financially viable to continue to hold the vehicle as the costs by that stage had exceeded the value of the car. The Council said that there was currently no formal step within its enforcement process to review such issues but that it would seek to review this.
69. I acknowledge that communication from Ms X was often irregular and the Council’s inhouse enforcement agency (the agents) stopped trading during the time of Ms X’s car being stored. However, I am satisfied that overall, the Council continued to allow things to drift and a had a general lack of oversight of what the position was and what should be done to move things on. This was fault. It caused Ms X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. I consider that whilst Ms X suffered avoidable injustice, this is not ongoing due to the Council’s remedy offer which is discussed below. I have recommended an apology below for the injustice caused.

The Council’s proposed remedy

70. I acknowledge the Councils stance that appropriate enforcement stages were followed. I also acknowledge that Ms X’s submissions to the TEC, her first N244 application, her entering Breathing Space and apparent second N244 application were part of the reason the case was ongoing for so long.
71. However, in response to my enquiries the Council said it recognised the case lacked appropriate oversight and costs continued to build during Breathing Space and when the warrant of control had expired. It suggested a remedy for Ms X’s case. The Council offered:
• to cancel the outstanding debt which included all PCN and storage costs;
• an apology to Ms X for failing to communicate at key stages; and
• to release the vehicle to Ms X on an ‘as seen’ basis with no admission of liability or prejudice in respect of its condition.
72. I am satisfied the Council’s suggested remedy is appropriate for the identified injustice in this case. I have made a recommendation below for an apology for the injustice identified in this decision statement and separate service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

73. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• apologise to Ms X for the identified injustice; and
• carry out its proposed remedy.
74. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council will:
• review its failures in this case and outline any procedure or policy changes it should make necessary to address these. This should then be shared with relevant staff and managers; and
• complete checks to identify any similar current cases to Ms X’s where the Council has lacked oversight in the handling of enforcement matters relating to PCNs. This should be overseen by a senior officer within the Council and the Council should contact anyone identified, in an attempt to resolve matters.
75. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
76. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

77. 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