Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a parking penalty charge notice. There is not enough remaining injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly instructed an enforcement agency to recover charges for an unpaid penalty charge notice (PCN) despite Mr X having an Individual Voluntary Agreement (IVA).
2. Mr X says the Council’s decision to use enforcement action caused him distress and anxiety resulting in loss of sleep, distraction from work and family life, and financial worry. Mr X wants a written apology, the Council to review its internal procedures and a payment of £1500.

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 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council instructed an enforcement agency (EA) to recover debt for an unpaid PCN issued to Mr X. As paragraph 4 explained, we consider the Council ultimately responsible for the EA’s actions here.
8. Mr X told the EA he had an IVA, so normal debt recovery action should not take place. However, the EA contacted Mr X several more times until it received evidence of the IVA. The EA then paused enforcement action, contacted the Council and the Council took the matter back from the EA.
9. The EA acknowledged it should not have contacted Mr X about paying the debt after he first told it about the IVA. The EA gave Mr X £300 to remedy the avoidable stress and worry from the unnecessary contact.
10. Mr X argues the Council was aware of the IVA earlier, so should not have passed the debt to the EA in the first place. If the Council had not referred the matter to the EA, that would have meant the EA would never have contacted Mr X. The £300 payment has already remedied most of the injustice caused by that contact. Any separate injustice from the EA’s initial contact with Mr X is not significant enough to warrant us asking for a larger payment than the £300 Mr X has already received. Mr X received that payment from the EA, not the Council, but that does not affect our position. Mr X says the Ombudsman’s guidance suggests he should receive £1,500 for the distress caused. However, our guidance is that the injustice caused by unnecessary enforcement agent contact would normally be a maximum of £500. In the circumstances, that is not warranted here. There is not enough outstanding injustice to warrant us asking for a further payment or taking further action.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not significant enough remaining injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman