Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s escalation of an unpaid penalty charge notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to inform her that it had passed an unpaid penalty charge notice (PCN) to its enforcement agents (bailiffs) in late November 2024. She also complains the Council failed to stop her from making payment for the PCN to the Council directly after passing the case to its bailiffs.
2. Miss X believes the Council should have recalled the case from its bailiffs following her payment in December 2024.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X’s representative (Mr Y) and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Background

6. The Council issued a PCN for a parking contravention to Miss X’s company in April 2024. It then sent a ‘notice to owner’ to the company on 20 May 2024. The notice to owner directed the company to pay or make representations within 28 days.
7. Miss X made representations against the PCN on 10 June 2024 but the Council rejected them on 16 July 2024. Neither the company nor Miss X paid the PCN so the Council issued a charge certificate on 6 September 2024. The charge certificate explained the amount of the penalty charge had increased to £195 and that it must be paid within 14 days. It stated “If payment is not received, action may be taken by the council to recover the debt through the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court. This may result in a debt being registered against you at an additional cost of £10.00. If an order for recovery is sent to you it will explain the options available and the action you need to take by the date stated on the notice. If the debt still remains outstanding after an order for recovery has been issued then a warrant may be issued to bailiffs to seize your goods in order to recover the debt.
8. We strongly advise you to deal with this matter now, to avoid further costs at the order for recovery stage and if the debt is referred to bailiffs, as they will add their fees, which may significantly increase the amount that will have to be paid.”
9. The Council then sent a further remainder on 24 September 2024 warning that if the company did not pay the PCN it would take further action “which can result in debt collection or further fees and charges being applied.” It gave Miss X a further 14 days to pay the outstanding amount of £195.
10. Miss X still did not pay the PCN so the Council issued an order for recovery. This gave a date of 7 November 2024 for payment in full. The amount owed at that time was £205.
11. Miss X again did not pay, so the Council referred the case to its bailiffs on 28 November 2024; this incurred an additional charge of £75. Miss X then made a payment to the Council for £205 on 2 December 2024. She contacted the Council on 27 May 2025 asking for a receipt for her payment and the Council responded on 3 June 2025 explaining the case was with its bailiffs, as the additional charge of £75 remained unpaid, and that she should liaise directly with them to settle the debt.
12. Because Miss X made no further payments the bailiffs visited the company’s premises on 20 June 2025, adding a further cost of £235.

My findings

13. Miss X had numerous opportunities to pay the PCN before the Council passed the case to its bailiffs and the Council warned her of the consequences of non-payment on several occasions as set out above. It did not have to send further notification when it passed the case to the bailiffs and even if it had done, I cannot say this would have changed what happened next.
14. Miss X’s payment on 2 December 2024 did not satisfy the full debt due to the charges made by the bailiffs, which are in accordance with the Regulations, and the bailiffs were therefore entitled to take further action to recover the outstanding amount owed. The Council directed Miss X to contact the bailiffs before they visited the company’s premises but she did not pay. The bailiffs were therefore entitled to carry out the visit and to add the additional charge.
15. I have found no evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the case, or in the action taken by the bailiffs to recover payment for its charges. We cannot therefore say the Council must refund the bailiffs’ charges as Miss X and Mr Y would like.
16. Mr Y is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with the complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

17. 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