Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of enforcement action because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s handling of his debt, and the actions of enforcement agents instructed to recover the debt. Mr Y says the Council acted unfairly by allowing enforcement action to proceed when his case was under review.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

2. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
3. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to Mr Y, later passing the unpaid debt to an enforcement agent (EA). Mr Y submitted an appeal to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). The Council instructed the EA to place Mr Y’s account on hold until the TEC’s decision. The TEC refused Mr Y’s appeal, so the Council instructed the EA to continue with enforcement action.
5. Around a week later, Mr Y’s daughter contacted the EA. She explained Mr Y’s circumstances meant he needed to discuss different payment options. As Mr Y’s daughter was not listed as a person with authority on his account, the EA could not formally discuss this with her. It did advise Mr Y to get in contact with its welfare team to discuss his circumstances and to consider different payment options.
6. Mr Y sent an email to the EA some days later. The email was addressed to the welfare team, requesting assistance with setting up a payment arrangement. An automated response was issued to Mr Y, confirming receipt of his email and advising it could take up to 10 working days for the EA to respond. Mr Y says his account should have been placed on hold once he sent this email, because this meant it was under review. However, Mr Y should not have assumed this. Mr Y says the automated response did not say enforcement action would continue, but neither did it suggest it would be paused. I am satisfied the automated response was a receipt of email delivery and was not confirmation that Mr Y’s account was under review or on hold.
7. I understand Mr Y is unhappy that enforcement action continued, and that the EA attended his property within 10 working days of him sending the email. Mr Y says the fee that the EA added to his account for attending his property should be refunded. However, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the processes followed by the EA. Mr Y’s account was not on hold at the time the EA attended his property, and it was entitled to add a fee for this. We will, therefore, not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman