The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council’s bailiff visited and clamped her car when she was paying her penalty charge notice (PCN) debt as agreed. The Council has agreed to remedy Ms X’s injustice. It has apologised and will pay in total £300.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council’s bailiff, in May 2021, made an unnecessary enforcement visit and clamped her car for an unpaid penalty charge notice debt (PCN) arising from two parking contraventions. Ms X says she showed the bailiff proof she was paying the debt according to her agreement to pay. Ms X says the Council’s bailiff left her feeling humiliated and traumatised. She says her privacy was invaded and she suffers anxiety. Ms X says the Council should pay compensation of £5000.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with action a council has taken or proposes to take.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I have discussed the complaint with Ms X by telephone.
My assessment
I will not investigate this complaint because the Council has agreed to remedy Ms X’s injustice: The Council accepted shortly after the enforcement visit that it should not have happened. The correspondence shows Ms X made her monthly payment as required under the agreement to pay set up in 2020. The bailiff failed to deal with the payment due to the bank holiday.
The injustice to Ms X is the distress caused by the enforcement visit, the clamping of her car, and the time and trouble in pursuing the matter including complaining.
The Council partly corrected the matter by quickly removing the enforcement visit fee and apologising. It also cancelled some fees relating to the combined penalty charge debt which the agreement to pay covered. The information provided shows the amount of cancelled fees is £204.69.
If Ms X wants damages for ongoing harm to her health then such a claim is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because there is a remedy at court (see paragraphs 3 and 4). It would be reasonable for Ms X to use her legal remedy because it is for a court to decide if the Council was liable for such harm, and it has the power to award damages.
Agreed action
I recommended to the Council it should pay Ms X £300 to remedy her injustice. The Council has already cancelled fees of £204.69 and has agreed to pay the difference which is £95.31.
Final decision
The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council’s bailiff visited and clamped her car when she was paying her penalty charge notice (PCN) debt as agreed. The Council has agreed to remedy Ms X’s injustice. It has apologised and will pay in total £300.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman