Summary: There was no fault in how bailiffs acting on behalf of the Council conducted the removal and sale of Miss B’s car. And, although the Council was at fault for a late complaint response from the bailiffs, Miss B’s injustice has already been remedied with an apology.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss B, complains that bailiffs acting on behalf of the Council – Marston – clamped and removed her car, even though it was used as transport for a disabled person. She says the bailiff ignored the blue badge in the car.
2. Miss B says Marston then sold the car for under its market value. She says this caused her a financial injustice, and the sale of the car meant the disabled person – who I refer to as Ms C – could no longer access the community.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Miss B and Marston. Both, and the Council, had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Regulations and guidance

7. Regulation 4 of The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 says vehicles are exempt from removal if “a valid disabled person’s badge is displayed”.
8. Marston’s complaints procedure says it aims to respond to all stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.

What happened

9. In November 2020, Miss B received a parking fine from the Council. By January 2022 this fine had been escalated because of non-payment. The courts issued a warrant of control to Marston.
10. In early February, a bailiff clamped Miss B’s car. He took photographs of the car. There was no evidence of a blue badge in the photographs.
11. The bailiff completed online checks and a valuation. The trade price was around £1,800. He then removed the car.
12. The following day, Marston wrote to Miss B with the valuation, and said it would sell the car if it received no payment within a fortnight.
13. Someone else complained to the bailiffs about the removal of Miss B’s car, saying the car was used for a disabled person. Miss B says this complainant – Ms C’s daughter – did so on her behalf. But this was not made clear in the complaint.
14. A further email was then sent, apparently by Ms C, which set out her disabilities. She attached a photograph of her blue badge.
15. By mid-February Marston had received no payment from Miss B. It emailed an auctioneer, who said that, as the car had no keys and had previously been written off, the guide price would be £1,200.
16. In early March the car sold at auction for £1,390. The auctioneer deducted their costs and transferred Marston the money.
17. Marston then deducted the money Miss B owed the Council and sent her a cheque for what was left (£388.90).
18. In late April Marston responded to the complaint which had been submitted by Ms C’s daughter. It noted that it had no consent to share information with her, as she was not the subject of enforcement action. It said it had acted correctly in removing Miss B’s car because there was no disabled badge showing on the day of removal.

My findings

19. The photographs taken by the bailiff when he clamped the car show no disabled badge.
20. As the Regulations say a car displaying a badge is exempt from removal – not simply a car belonging to someone who has access to a badge – I have seen no evidence of fault in the bailiff’s decision to remove the car.
21. Although Marston did receive an email about this the following day, this was not from Miss B and there was no reference to it being sent on Miss B’s behalf. The information about disability was not about Miss B either. There was no evidence about any vulnerability to Miss B which Marston needed to consider.
22. Marston did send its complaint response far too late – after 12 weeks rather than the two it aims for in its complaints procedure. This was fault. And it is possible that this delay meant Miss B (if she was aware of the complaint at all) did not know that it had been unsuccessful – and that her only remaining option was to pay the fine – before the car was sold.
23. However, there is no way of knowing if an earlier complaint response would have changed anything, and it is fair to assume that, had Miss B been able to pay the fine, she would already have done so. So I do not consider the delay to the complaint response to have caused her a quantifiable financial injustice. Marston has already apologised, and this is a satisfactory remedy.
24. Finally, although Miss B feels her car was undervalued, it sold for more than the auctioneer had estimated. Consequently, I have no reason to find fault with how Marston conducted the valuation and sale.

Back to top

Final decision

25. There was no fault in how Marston (acting on behalf of the Council) conducted the removal and sale of Miss B’s car. But the Council was at fault for a late complaint response from Marston.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman