Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Authority’s enforcement action in relation to 11 Penalty Charge Notices. Investigation would not achieve a different or more meaningful outcome, and the courts are best placed to consider compensation claims.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Authority failed to properly oversee enforcement carried out by its contractor. Her concerns included:
• her vehicle was removed despite only four of her 11 Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) having reached the enforcement stage;
• the contractor demanded payment relating to all PCNs, including those still at the compliance stage; and
• she was given conflicting and inaccurate information during multiple telephone calls and was not informed payment of one of the cases could prevent removal of her vehicle.
2. Miss X said she was deprived of her vehicle, which led to costs of vehicle hire and transport expenses. She says she was also caused significant inconvenience and distress. In her complaint to the Authority, she also said she had suffered a loss of earnings and damage to her vehicle while in its agents’ custody.
3. Miss X said the Authority later reduced all PCNs back to their original amounts, but refused to remedy the losses caused by avoidable enforcement action. Miss X wanted the Authority to acknowledge fault, reimburse her financial losses and pay modest compensation, and make service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X received 11 PCNs. She did not pay the reduced charge or appeal, and the Authority therefore passed the PCNs to its enforcement agents.
9. The enforcement agents sent Miss X at least four notices of enforcement. They then visited her home. As Miss X did not make payment, they seized her car.
10. Miss X complained to the Authority and ultimately to the Ombudsman. The Authority reduced the PCNs by 50% to provide Miss X further opportunity to pay the original PCN cost.
11. When we consider how to remedy injustice in the way of distress and inconvenience, we may make recommendations for a symbolic payment. We do not recommend significant sums of compensation in the way the courts do. In the most serious cases, where someone has been caused serious loss or harm over an extended period, we will normally recommend a remedy payment of up to £500.
12. When we consider the injustice a person has suffered, we also take into account any contribution they made to their own injustice. Miss X accrued 11 PCNs, the validity of which she says she does not challenge. She did not pay or appeal those PCNs at an earlier stage. We would not achieve any more meaningful remedy by investigating the matter as the Council has already taken action that reduced Miss X’s PCNs by a significant sum.
13. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to assess economic losses or obtain compensation for damage to property. Where compensation is a person’s primary aim, we will normally signpost them to their insurers and ultimately the courts. Miss X’s complaint is, largely, actually a negligence claim. There is not a good reason here for us to consider the matter as a complaint instead.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because investigation would not achieve a different or more meaningful outcome, and the courts are best placed to consider compensation claims.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman