Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of enforcement agents recovering parking penalties on its behalf. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about enforcement agents employed by the Council to recover unpaid parking penalties. She says the agent who visited her home was rude and unprofessional when he made his second visit and that he later issued a notice of immobilisation although her car was not clamped, which caused her anxiety.

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 agents of the Council’s employers.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says the enforcement agent who called at her home to collect unpaid penalty charge notice and enforcement fees was rude and unprofessional. He did not offer her payment instalments and made comments about his own gender which she believes were discriminatory in tone. On a following visit when she was not present a notice of immobilisation was left implying that her car had been clamped for non-payment when it had not.
6. Miss X complained to the agent’s employers who investigated the matter. They told her that three visits were made at which she was only present at the one she complained about. There was no camera record of the conversation but the agent disputed her views on his conduct. The employers apologised for the comments she may have found offensive and the notice which was served in error subsequently. It decided to remove the £235 enforcement fee which covered the three visits in question as a gesture of goodwill and primarily because it had evidence that the immobilisation notice should not have been left.
7. There is no evidence that what the bailiff told Miss X was offensive or discriminatory and despite the notice being served her car was clearly not clamped and she continued to use it. She did not request an instalment plan and she had not paid the outstanding balance when the employers lowered the outstanding balance.
8. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of enforcement agents recovering parking penalties on its behalf. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman