Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement action because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council took enforcement action, clamping his car, without regard to his vulnerability and need to use it, causing distress.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says he made the Council aware of his vulnerabilities a month prior to enforcement action yet no regard was shown to this.
7. The enforcement agency acting on the Council’s behalf says the enforcement notice explains a recipient should call the agency if they need any support or adjustments yet Mr X did not call the agency until after it had clamped his car.
8. As it was open to Mr X to call the enforcement agency upon receiving the notice to inform of his vulnerability, I cannot say any fault by the Council directly caused an injustice.
9. Upon Mr X’s call the enforcement agency sought evidence in support of his vulnerability. It also says an officer returned to Mr X’s car the same day but found it was no longer in place where it had been left clamped. Further that it did not remove the clamp at any time. However, Mr X says he can evidence the car did not move. Mr X says the clamp was removed three days later but it should have been removed sooner.
10. It is unlikely further investigation will establish who removed the clamp and when. In any event, I consider any delay in removing the clamp did not cause Mr X a significant enough injustice to justify an investigation. I note Mr X was distressed due to the lack of car over the weekend meaning he had to go without essentials or else walk, placing him at fear of danger from third parties. Fortunately Mr X did not come to any harm. Mr X’s circumstances do not meet our threshold of significant injustice.
11. The Council was entitled to take enforcement action to recover the debt and to apply fees at each stage as set in law. There is not enough evidence of fault in this regard. I note the debt is still owed though the agency waived the enforcement fee as a goodwill gesture.
12. Mr X also complained his car was damaged by the clamp. But we cannot make findings on negligence and liability for damage. It is reasonable for Mr X to go to court if he seeks compensation for damage.
13. It is not a proportionate use of our resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman