Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Miss X’s complaint regarding the actions of an enforcement agent. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council did not independently investigate her complaint about enforcement agents who attended her home. She said the incident has had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. She wanted the Council to apologise and provide financial compensation.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. An enforcement agent visited Miss X’s home in June 2025 to recover three unpaid parking Penalty Notice Charges issued to a vehicle registered to the address. The vehicle belonged to Miss X’s relative. Miss X complained to the Enforcement Agency, and the Council about the agent’s visit to her property.
6. The Enforcement Agency provided Miss X with two responses to her complaint. Both responses referenced footage of the visit from the enforcement agent’s body worn camera. In it’s complaint response, the Agency said that Miss X had invited the enforcement agent into the property and informed them the vehicle owner did not live at the address. The Agency said the enforcement agent then informed Miss X they would need to search the property to satisfy the relative did not live there, Miss X disagreed and called the police. The police attended and confirmed the enforcement agent could search the property.
7. In its complaint response, the Agency acknowledged that enforcement action can be distressing and apologised to Miss X if this was her experience. It also acknowledged that the enforcement agent could have asked Miss X for proof of residency. The Agency said it would consider whether additional training on this topic would be appropriate.
8. In its separate complaint response, the Council confirmed that it had independently reviewed the footage from the body worn camera. The Council told Miss X it understood that a visit from an enforcement agent might not be pleasant, but they had not identified any misconduct by the agent. The Council also said it had investigated if the Enforcement Agency had followed processes regarding vulnerabilities and found no fault.
9. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council confirmed that it had independently reviewed footage of the enforcement agent’s visit to Miss X’s property and agreed with the enforcement agent’s assessment that no misconduct had taken place. The Enforcement Agency also provided a detailed response to Miss X’s complaints.
10. Miss X complained about delays in responding to her complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman