The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council wrongly instructed enforcement agents to recover payment for a penalty charge notice she had already paid. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council causing Mrs X significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council instructed enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover £424 from her for a penalty charge notice (PCN) she had already paid.
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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Background
The Council issued Mrs X two PCNs for parking contraventions in July 2021. Mrs X did not pay or formally appeal against the PCNs so the Council escalated the cases, increasing the amount owed.
Mrs X contacted the Council in October 2021 asking to appeal against the PCNs but by this point she was out of time. The Council did however offer to accept the discounted rate of £70 per PCN if she paid within 14 days. She did not so the Council registered the unpaid PCNs as a debt with the court. At this point Mrs X owed £114 per PCN.
Mrs X wrote to the Council in January 2022 explaining she could not pay the full amount of £228. She asked to pay in instalments of £20 per month or, if this was not acceptable, by making two payments of £114 on 23 January and 23 February 2022.
The Council responded to Mrs X on 12 January 2022 and agreed to put the case on hold to allow her to pay the debt in two instalments of £114 on the dates requested.
Mrs X made her first payment on 24 January 2022, one day late, and did not make her second payment as agreed. The Council took the second case off hold on 26 February 2022, three days after the payment was due, and passed the case to its bailiffs to recover payment from Mrs X. The bailiffs wrote to Mrs X on 8 March 2022, adding a further £75 to the amount owed, but Mrs X says she did not receive this letter. She paid the second instalment of £114 to the Council on 18 March 2022, 23 days late, but the Council did not inform the bailiffs and the payment did not clear the debt in any event. The bailiffs therefore visited Mrs X’s property, adding a further fee of £235 to the amount owed. During this visit the bailiffs threatened to clamp Mrs X’s vehicle and Mrs X paid the full amount of £424 to prevent further action.
My assessment
The Council was not at fault for passing the case to the bailiffs following Mrs X’s missed payment. Mrs X proposed the payment dates and when she failed to pay in time the Council was entitled to escalate the case as it did.
While Mrs X says she did not receive the bailiffs’ letter sent on 8 March 2022 we could not say this was the result of any fault by the Council or the bailiffs acting on its behalf. The bailiffs are not required to send letters by registered or tracked delivery and it is likely, on balance, that if the letter was not received this was the result of it being lost in the post.
There was fault in the Council’s failure to inform the bailiffs about Mrs X’s second payment but this did not cause Mrs X significant injustice. This is because the payment of £114 did not clear the debt, which at that point amounted to £189 including the bailiff’s fees. The bailiffs were therefore entitled to take further action to recover the balance, including visiting Mrs X’s property and charging a fee for doing so. The amount of the fee is in accordance with the regulations and was properly owed.
The Council acted promptly following Mrs X’s contact to ensure she received a refund for the £114 overpayment resulting from her payment to the bailiffs and this resolved the issue. I see no basis for recommending the Council refunds any further part of her payment or to warrant any payment of compensation as Mrs X would like.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council affecting its escalation of the case.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman