The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to tell its enforcement agent that a parking fine had already been paid. This led to an unnecessary and distressing visit to his home by the enforcement agents. We have found fault because the Council did not tell the enforcement agent the debt had been paid and did not deal with his complaint properly. I have not investigated the conduct of the enforcement agent because this should be considered through its own complaint procedure first. To remedy Mr X’s distress, time and trouble, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to him and review its practices.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to inform enforcement agents a parking fine had already been paid. This led to an unnecessary and distressing visit from enforcement agents who attempted to remove his car. He also complains about the conduct of the enforcement agents and delay in dealing with his complaint.
Mr X says this caused considerable distress to him and his family who were present at the time.
What I have investigated I have only investigated the actions of the Council. I have not investigated Mr X’s conduct of enforcement officers for the reason explained in my final paragraph.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke with Mr X and reviewed the information he provided, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision
What I found
Enforcement agents In summary, the process for enforcement agents in seeking to recover civil debts is as follows: a court grants an order to the council which allows the enforcement agent to take action; the enforcement agent may try to contact the debtor by letter to get payment of the debt in full or by instalments; and if this is unsuccessful, the enforcement agent will visit intending to seize goods to sell in order to meet the debt and associated costs.
Before taking control of goods (in other words visiting to take goods) an enforcement agent must issue a notice of enforcement on the debtor seven clear days before taking control of goods.
An enforcement agent may be directly employed by a council or work for a private firm which the council has contracted to provide services for debt recovery. Either way, the enforcement agent is acting for the council and so the matter is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
What happened In March 2021, Mr X incurred a penalty charge notice (PCN) for a parking offence. As Mr X had recently moved house, his keeper details had not been updated with the DVLA. When this was matter was resolved, Mr X paid the parking fine in October 2021.
In December 2021, Mr X received an unexpected visit from enforcement agents seeking payment of the PCN and additional court and enforcement fees.
Mr X explained the fine had already been paid. He says the enforcement agents disregarded this information, proceeded to clamp his vehicle temporarily and informed Mr X the debt had increased to £846. He was told his vehicle would be towed away in seven days.
Once the enforcement agents left, Mr X contacted the Council. An officer confirmed the fine had been paid and no further action would be taken.
Whilst relieved about this, Mr X says he suffered considerable distress because the visit happened at all and the conduct of the enforcement agents. He has a disabled daughter, and his wife was extremely upset about the impact of being without the family car. Several neighbours witnessed the incident, causing Mr X embarrassment.
Mr X immediately submitted a formal complaint to the Council. He also indicated he was considering court action and asked the Council to make a compensation payment of £15000. He has since accepted this was an unrealistic figure prompted by the initial shock of the experience, but was nevertheless a starting point for negotiation by the Council.
Mr X did not receive a response, despite making several calls to the Council. He sent a reminder letter on 30 May 2022. The Council issued its response on 22 June 2022. The Council upheld his complaint and: accepted the complaint response had taken far too long; accepted the visit by the enforcement agents should not have happened. This was due to miscommunication between the Council and the enforcement agents; was unable to investigate the conduct of the enforcement agents. Mr X was advised to complain directly to the enforcement agents about this; advised Mr X to contact the Council’s legal department if he still wished to pursue his claim for compensation; and had reminded staff of the need to provide timely responses to complaints and follow correct procedures when instructing enforcement agents.
Analysis The Council has accepted there was fault, and this led to the unnecessary visit from the enforcement agents.
For the reason explained below, I am unable to comment of the conduct of the enforcement agents during the visit. But regardless of how the enforcement officers behaved, I am satisfied Mr X suffered distress by having the agents attend his home and clamp his car, with the threat of it being towed away and sold. This was particularly distressing for Mr X because of his personal circumstances. This visit was avoidable and caused by Council fault. I do not consider the Council’s verbal apology to be an adequate remedy for his injustice and have made additional recommendations below.
I am also satisfied Mr X suffered an injustice because of the time and trouble he spent pursuing his complaint. He waited far too long to receive his response, only to be told he should complain to the enforcement agents about one of his main grievances. He was also belatedly advised to contact the Council’s legal department about his compensation claim. Mr X should have been told this information straight away. This is further fault. As a result of this delay, Mr X has been denied his right to complain to the correct organisation until now. Mr X is understandably hesitant about doing so because he does not wish to be reminded of the distress he experienced.
He was also given incorrect information about the role of the Council in respect of the complaint about the conduct of the enforcement agents. While the Council was correct to direct Mr X to the enforcement agents’ own complaints procedure in the first instance, it should have advised him of his right to come back to the Council if he remained dissatisfied with the outcome. This is because, even when a council contracts with a third party to carry out work on its behalf, the council retains overall responsibility for the provision of the service. This was fault and I have made a recommendation below to address this going forwards.
Agreed action
Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following action: Apologise in writing for the faults I have identified.
Pay Mr X £150 to acknowledge the distress his suffered as a result of the unnecessary visit by the enforcement agents.
Pay Mr X £100 to acknowledge the significant delay in responding to his complaint and failing to provide correct signposting information in a timely fashion.
Ensure its complaints procedure is updated to ensure complainants are properly advised of their right to complain to the Council if they remain dissatisfied with the outcome of a complaint to a third-party contractor.
Final decision
I have found the Council to be at fault and the Council has agreed to action my recommendations to remedy the injustice to Mr X. On this basis I have completed my investigation.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of the enforcement agents. This is because this has not yet been considered through the enforcement agents’ own complaint procedure. Mr X’s complaint to us is therefore premature.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman