Summary: There was fault by the Council, because of an administrative error by its contractor in pursuing a debt from the complainant, arising from a penalty charge notice, and because it did not properly deal with his complaint about this. The Council has agreed to apologise, and offer a financial remedy, for the anxiety and time and trouble it caused him.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr D.
2. Mr D complains a warrant of control was issued to an enforcement agency to collect payment of a penalty charge notice (PCN), despite the fact he had an existing repayment agreement with a different enforcement agency. Although the matter was subsequently resolved, Mr D says the Council was unhelpful and unresponsive when he sought its assistance, which caused him frustration, and left him concerned he might be visited by enforcement agents.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Some time ago Mr D received a PCN for a traffic violation from the Council. The Council passed the PCN to an enforcement agency (Agency 1) to collect, and Mr D agreed a payment plan with the agency.
7. However, after he had begun to make payments in accordance with this agreement, in September 2025 Mr D was contacted by a different agency (Agency 2), seeking to collect payment for the same PCN.
8. Mr D submitted a stage 1 complaint to the Council. He asked it to confirm it had instructed Agency 2 to cease collection, and to explain how it had come to commission two different agencies for the same case.
9. The Council replied on the same day, refusing to accept the complaint. It explained the “matter [fell] outside of the Corporate Complaints Procedure”, which was to “investigate failures in service” by the Council. The Council said it had instead referred the matter to its service area, to respond to Mr D directly.
10. Mr D then referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

11. A council can lawfully commission a third-party provider to perform an operational function on its behalf. However, the council retains legal responsibility for the provider’s performance. This is because the council cannot lawfully delegate the actual statutory duty the provider is discharging; such as, as in this case, the enforcement of certain traffic regulations.
12. The Council has explained it commissioned a contractor to collect Mr D’s PCN debt, and that it is aware this contractor sometimes sub-contracts the work to an enforcement agency.
13. In response to initial enquiries we made about Mr D’s complaint, the Council said:

“… the Council issued only one warrant to [the contractor]. The Council has not issued two warrants for this case. [The contractor has] advised that they sometimes pass warrants to [Agency 1] to collect certain debts.”

14. The Council went on to explain the contractor had confirmed only one warrant had been issued, which Mr D had now paid in full; however, the contractor had not informed Agency 1 that the debt had been paid. It had now instructed Agency to return the case, and apologised for this oversight.
15. This response did not address Mr D’s actual complaint, or explain how he had come to be contacted by Agency 2. I therefore wrote to the Council again, providing copies of messages Mr D had received from Agency 2, and asked it to investigate further, and explain how this had come about.
16. In response, the Council said:

“With regard to the subsequent evidence provided by [Mr D] showing contact from [Agency 2], the Council can confirm that there is no record of any instruction, authorisation, or referral made by the Council for [Agency 2] to become involved in this case … The involvement of [Agency 2], based on the available evidence, appears to have arisen outside of the Council’s instruction and is therefore indicative of an issue within the contractor's processes rather than a failure in the Council’s decision-making or case management.

“Nevertheless, in line with our duty to maintain appropriate oversight, the Council raised this matter with the enforcement agents concerned and requested clarification as to how this situation arose. This was acknowledged as an error on their part, however senior management are looking at how the contract is managed to ensure that any procedural issues within contractor operations are identified and addressed to prevent recurrence.”

17. I accept the involvement of Agency 2 in this case was an administrative error, and I am satisfied there is no reason to believe this is a wider problem. I am also satisfied the Council has now properly recognised that, even though the administrative error appears to have been made by the contractor in this case, it still bears ultimately responsibility for this.
18. However, this recognition alone does not address the impact of the fault on Mr D. He has explained he was faced with the anxiety that Agency 2 would make a visit to his property, which appears to a reasonable concern.
19. In connection with this, I am not satisfied with the way the Council handled Mr D’s complaint.
20. A PCN carries various rights of appeal, and a person is normally expected to use these rights to dispute the PCN, rather than making a complaint. It appears the Council believed this was what Mr D’s complaint was about, and rejected it accordingly.
21. But a simple reading of the complaint demonstrates, clearly, it was not an attempt to dispute the notice itself, but to raise a justifiable concern about the debt collection process. There was no other avenue for Mr D to do this and, had the Council processed the complaint properly, it could have resolved this matter much sooner, and without the involvement of the Ombudsman.
22. I therefore consider the Council to be at fault for two reasons here – first, because of the vicarious responsibility it bears for the contractor’s error, and second, because it did not deal with Mr D’s complaint properly, and in doing so, missed the opportunity to resolve the matter quickly.
23. This caused injustice to Mr D. This is partly because he was wrongly pursued for payment by Agency 2, with the attendant anxiety this caused, and partly because of the unnecessary time and trouble he was put to by the Council’s failure to deal with his complaint.
24. To remedy this, I consider the Council should write a formal letter of apology to Mr D, reflecting on these faults and their impact on him, and offer to pay him £150 for the same reason.

Back to top

Action

25. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• write a formal letter of apology to Mr D, to acknowledge the faults I have identified in this case and their impact on him. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended; and
• offer to pay Mr D £150 for the same reason.

26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

27. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman