Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of enforcement action because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to protect a vulnerable debtor in breach of relevant guidance. Mr X said the threat of enforcement action in relation to the vehicle he is sleeping in added to the stress of his housing situation and affected his mental health.

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, or

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. The Council issued a number of penalty charge notices (PCNs) in relation to Mr X’s vehicle being parked illegally and without a permit on a street in its area. As Mr X did not make the relevant payments, the PCNs were passed to enforcement agents (company A) to take enforcement action.
6. Mr X contacted company A in late September to explain he was vulnerable. He said he was currently homeless and living in his vehicle and was worried that if bailiffs seized the vehicle he would be left without shelter. Company A referred the case to its welfare team, which said it would suspend enforcement action and further fees, pending instructions from the Council.
7. In early October Mr X sent an email headed “formal complaint” to the Council asking it to recall the debt from company A. On the same day, he sent a further email to clarify he was making a statutory compliance demand, not a complaint. The Council treated the communications as a complaint and responded on 23 October. It said it would not recall the debt at that point but would ask company A to suspend enforcement action, whilst it reviewed the situation. It set out the specific steps it would take and asked Mr X to provide specific documents to it.
8. Mr X was unhappy the Council had not recalled the debt.
9. In early November, the Council wrote to Mr X to say further PCNs to company A for enforcement.
10. On 14 November, the Council confirmed it would ask company A to suspend enforcement action for 90 days so that Mr X could seek advice from a debt adviser and agree a repayment plan with it.
11. On 21 November, the Council wrote to company A to confirm the suspension. In the meantime, Mr X had contacted company A directly and it had confirmed it was not aware of the suspension.

My assessment

12. Mr X is not disputing the issue of the PCNs or the debt owed to the Council.
13. Company A and the Council accepted Mr X was vulnerable when he explained his circumstances to them. In response, enforcement action was suspended, initially to 20 November, and subsequently to February 2026.
14. The Taking Control of Goods: national Standards (2014) says if a debtor (Mr X) is identified as being vulnerable, the creditor (the Council) should be prepared to control the case “if necessary”. Mr X asked the Council to recall the debt, which the Council considered, but did not agree to do. It was not required to recall the debt. It was also not required to stop issuing PCNs or passing them to company A if they were not paid during the suspension period.
15. Based on the record seen, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council, or company A on its behalf, considered Mr X’s vulnerability and the impact of that on how it enforced the debt, to justify further investigation.
16. There was a delay between 14 and 21 November before the Council informed company A of the 90 days suspension it had agreed. However, company A had already agreed to suspend enforcement pending instructions from the Council and no enforcement action was taken in that period. The delay was no so significant, nor was the injustice caused sufficient to justify further investigation.
17. Mr X initially raised a complaint, and the Council treated it as such. It was for the Council to consider whether it was appropriate to treat the matter as a complaint or a service request. There is no indication this led to a delay in responding to him. In any case, the Council also communicated with him outside the complaints process. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
18. For all the above reasons, we will not consider this complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman