Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Enforcement Agency acting on behalf of the Council in relation to unpaid Penalty Charge Notices. This is because we could not add to the Council’s investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s enforcement action in relation to unpaid Penalty Charge Notices (PCN). He said the matter caused him distress. He wants the Council to provide him with a financial remedy for the injustice caused and to make service improvements to prevent a recurrence of fault.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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

5. Mr X said the Enforcement Agency acting on behalf of the Council caused him distress. He said the Enforcement Agency:
• threatened him by saying the unpaid debt would lead to a County Court Judgement (CCJ);
• had used inappropriate language towards him; and
• had immobilised his vehicle which he depended on for work purposes.
6. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council said:
• it was for the Council to decide whether the unpaid debt would lead to a CCJ. It also acknowledged the Agent had used inappropriate language. It said it had addressed the matter with the Enforcement Agency to improve its services so that it would not happen again. The Council apologised to Mr X for the distress caused;
• the Agent acted appropriately and proportionately when they immobilised Mr X’s vehicle as Mr X had not made any payment despite the Enforcement Agency giving him sufficient time to do so. It said it acknowledged Mr X required his car for work however this did not exempt enforcement action; and
• there was now a payment plan in place. The Council had removed any related enforcement fees and did not charge Mr X for the visits conducted by the Enforcement Agency. The Council therefore did not consider a financial remedy was proportionate.
7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as we could not add to the Council’s investigation. It recognised there was some fault and addressed the matter appropriately and proportionately.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman