The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council was not at fault for how an enforcement agency, acting on its behalf, conducted a visit to Mr B in relation to non-payment of a parking ticket. Mr B’s allegations about the behaviour of the bailiff are not supported by the available body-worn camera footage. And neither the agency nor the Council were at fault for how they dealt with Mr B’s complaint.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, complains that a bailiff forced entry into his house without permission. He says the bailiff then stayed in his house for ‘hours’ while ‘intimidating, threatening and undermining’ him.
Mr B also complains that the enforcement agency did not investigate his complaint properly. He says the agency refused to escalate the complaint to the second stage of its complaints procedure.
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. 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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Mr B and the Council. This included footage from the bailiff’s body-worn camera.
Mr B and the had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
What should have happened?
The enforcement agency’s complaints procedure outlines a two-stage process, with the potential for independent review and adjudication ‘if necessary’.
At stage 1 of the procedure, the agency conducts an investigation based on the information the complainant has provided, along with any information held on their case file. This may include body-worn camera footage. A response will be provided in 10 working days and, if the agency does not accept fault, it will explain why.
If the complainant is not happy with their stage 1 response they can request a management review. A group director will review their initial complaint and response to ensure it has been thoroughly investigated and each point accurately addressed. They will decide whether they need to re-investigate the complaint and will provide a response within 10 working days.
An independent review is available to those who are dissatisfied with their stage 2 response. If this does not resolve matters, the complainant can ask for an external adjudication.
What happened?
In January 2022 a bailiff visited Mr B’s property. The enforcement agency had been given a warrant of control to seize Mr B’s possessions after non-payment of a parking ticket.
The bailiff spoke to Mr B on his doorstep. Mr B was unhappy with the visit, saying he had not received the correct correspondence beforehand. The bailiff told him he could challenge the warrant of control separately with the county court, but, in the meantime, he (the bailiff) had to execute it. He asked Mr B if he would pay the outstanding debt.
Mr B continued to dispute his liability for the debt, and refused to pay. The bailiff said he would need to come into Mr B’s house to take control of his possessions. Mr B refused. The bailiff said, “I have to come inside sir … because I’m seizing goods … I need to come inside to start making records”. Mr B asked the bailiff to take his shoes off. The bailiff did so, and entered the property without further objection from Mr B. He did not physically force his way into the house.
The bailiff remained in Mr B’s house for around another two and a half hours. For some of this time, Mr B continued to express his dissatisfaction with the enforcement fees and with how the agency had become involved in his case. The bailiff gave Mr B further information about how he could appeal to the county court.
There is no evidence of intimidating, threatening or otherwise unprofessional behaviour by the bailiff in the body-worn camera footage.
Mr B complained to the enforcement agency in July. The agency responded. When Mr B challenged this, the stage 1 respondent refused to escalate the complaint. He said his first response had been based on facts, and the bailiff’s visit was carried out in accordance with Regulations.
Mr B then complained to the Council, which said he needed to complain to the enforcement agency. He then approached the Ombudsman.
My findings
The bailiff’s visit was undoubtedly stressful for Mr B, who strongly believed that the visit was unjust. And, as part of their job, bailiffs must necessarily speak in a firm and direct manner. But the body-worn camera footage does not support Mr B’s complaint. Because of this, I have found no fault with the Council for how the enforcement agency carried out the visit.
The enforcement agency is entitled to refuse a stage 2 complaint if it feels the stage 1 response was thorough and accurate – which is what happened here. It appears the stage 1 respondent decided not to take the matter to stage 2, which was not in line with the agency’s procedure (which says a director will review the complaint).
However, having considered Mr B’s complaint myself – as well as the agency’s reasons for refusing his stage 2 complaint – I do not consider it likely that a different reviewer would have made a different decision. So this matter is not significant enough to justify a finding of fault with how the agency dealt with the complaint.
The Council was able to deal with Mr B’s complaint about the enforcement agency because the agency was acting on its behalf. However, it was not unreasonable for the Council to expect the agency to respond under its own complaints procedure. So the Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Mr B’s complaint.
Final decision
The Council was not at fault for how an enforcement agency, acting on its behalf, conducted a visit to Mr B in relation to non-payment of a parking ticket. And neither the agency nor the Council were at fault for how they dealt with Mr B’s complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman