The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of enforcement agents instructed by the Council to recover payment for a penalty charge notice. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome.
The complaint
The complainant, Miss X, complains the Council’s enforcement agents (bailiffs) claim to have sent a letter she did not receive, concerning an unpaid penalty charge notice (PCN). The bailiffs have now visited her home and added additional fees.
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) 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 Miss X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
There is no requirement for bailiffs to send correspondence by tracked or registered post. The bailiffs confirm they sent the letter to Miss X and we cannot prove they did not or say they must waive their fees. It is therefore unlikely investigation into the issue would achieve any worthwhile outcome for Miss X.
If Miss X wishes to challenge the Council’s escalation of the case, with reference to a statement from her email regarding the ‘notice to owner’, it would be reasonable for her to apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court to make a late witness statement. If successful the TEC has the power to take the process back to an earlier stage, removing the basis for any bailiff fees and reinstating Miss X’s right of appeal. The Council has provided details about this process to Miss X in its responses to her complaint.
Miss X is also unhappy with the actions of the Council’s bailiffs. The role of bailiffs is unavoidably confrontational and leads to some stress and concern by debtors. Whether their actions go beyond this in Miss X’s case is a matter for the courts. If Miss X is concerned about the bailiffs’ fitness to practice she may apply to the court to review this point. The court has the power to revoke a bailiff’s certificate if they believe they have acted inappropriately and should not continue to practice in their role.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we could not prove the bailiffs failed to send the letter to Miss X. We could not therefore achieve any worthwhile outcome for her.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman