Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s enforcement agent. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the agent to warrant investigation. It is not proportionate to investigate complaint handling issues.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the conduct of an enforcement agent the Council used to pursue payment for a parking penalty charge notice. Mrs X says the agent spoke to neighbours about his visit, asked about a key to access her property and left a letter which was visible to others. She also says the agent did not take account of her medical condition.

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)).

3. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
6. The Council replied the law allowed agents to make enquiries of neighbours. It said there was no evidence the agent asked a neighbour for a key. The Council did not consider the way its agent posted a letter during the visit was a data breach, but it said Mrs X could approach the Information Commissioners Office about her concerns. The Council noted Mrs X said the agent ignored information she gave about a medical appointment and it visited the next day. The Council explained the email Ms X sent was to a “do not reply email”, and so would not have been read.
7. The Council apologised for its delay in responding to Ms X’s stage one complaint.
8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or its agent to warrant investigation. The Council explained the action the agent is permitted to take, and did not find evidence the agent acted improperly.
9. We will not investigate the complaint handling matters Mrs X raised as it is not proportionate to investigate complaints about complaint procedures if we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or its agent to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman