Summary: The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s enforcement agents for removing a business vehicle for a parking fine. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for misinforming the complainant about the law concerning removal of business goods. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy to the complainant in recognition of the distress and confusion caused.

The complaint

1. Miss A complains about the Council issuing her with parking tickets and the way in which enforcement action took place.
2. She says the enforcement agents (hereafter ‘bailiffs’) were aggressive and did not provide her with any paperwork or tell her where they were taking the vehicle. Miss A says the bailiffs removed the vehicle that was far more than the debt. She complains it would not consider any offer from her of a payment plan or to provide goods with a value more in line with the debt.
3. Miss A complains about how long it took to sell the vehicle and the price it sold for.
4. Miss A also complains about the Council’s complaint responses.

Back to top

What I have investigated

5. I have investigated the actions of the bailiffs in removing the vehicle and how the Council handled Miss A’s complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)
8. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
9. If we are satisfied with a council’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

10. Miss A is complaining on behalf of herself and her business partner Mr B. I considered Miss A’s complaint and the information she provided. I also considered information from the Council and from the bailiffs. I considered Miss A and the Council’s comments on my decision and added information provided by Miss A.

Back to top

What I found

Government guidance on bailiff powers

11. Government advice on bailiff powers says that when paying a bailiff

• The bailiff does not have to accept your offer.
• They cannot take work tools and equipment which together are worth less than £1,350.
• You’ll have to prove that someone else’s goods do not belong to you.

What happened

12. Miss A owned a business delivering items to the local area. To do this, she entered into an agreement with another business owner, Mr B, that she would use his van for deliveries of both businesses.
13. Miss A says that her local area has poor resources for parking, and she often has to spend much her time trying to find a parking space for the van.
14. The Council issued the van multiple Penalty Notice Charges (PCN’s). This included parking infringements.
15. The Council received an informal challenge to one PCN by Miss A. It asked Miss A for further information, but this was not provided. It did not receive any informal challenges for the other PCN’s. The PCN’s were not paid and the Council applied to the court for a warrant to collect the amount owed from the PCN’s.
16. A warrant was granted to remove goods to the value of the debt. The Council passed the debt to bailiffs who located the van. In August 2019 the bailiffs attended the site where the van was located. This was close to Miss A’s property.
17. The bailiffs seized the van. Miss A says she offered the bailiffs alternative items to take but this was refused.
18. Miss A says the Council wrongly removed the van to recover the debt from the parking tickets. She says the Council action has caused hers and Mr B’s businesses to collapse, and she is now suffering financially.
19. Miss A says the Council should have removed other items to cover the debt as she cannot work without the van. Miss A complained to the Council about the removal of the van. The Council told Miss A it should not have removed the van as it was a “tool of the trade”. However, during the complaints process the Council did not uphold Miss A’s complaint about the removal of the van and said it could remove business goods valued over £1,500.
20. The bailiffs listed the van for sale and it sold at auction following its seizure. The balance was used to pay the outstanding debt from the PCN’s, bailiffs fees, and storage fees for the van. The remaining funds were refunded to the owner of the vehicle, Mr B.

Analysis

The decision to remove the van

21. Miss A complains about the way enforcement action was taken and the behaviour from the bailiffs.
22. Relevant body camera footage was requested as part of the Ombudsman’s investigation. However, the bailiffs only save footage for up to 45 days after capture. As Miss A complained after this time frame, I have been unable to review footage of the enforcement action.
23. I therefore cannot decide whether the bailiff’s behaviour was unreasonable. However, I understand the bailiffs sought support from the police during the action taking place, and it is my current view that any unreasonable behaviour from either party would have been managed by the police.
24. The Council had issued all proper communication about the PCN’s to the address of the registered owner, which was Mr B’s business. As this was not Miss A, she was not entitled to any information about the van and may not have known enforcement action was due to take place.
25. Although Miss A had entered into a business arrangement with Mr B to use the van, it would have been Mr B’s responsibility to manage the PCN’s and outstanding debt. As the debt was left unpaid, the Council progressed to enforcement action.
26. The Council reviewed the bailiff’s policy during the complaints process. The policy said “agents will not accept a payment plan once the debt has gone beyond the compliance stage (initial letter from bailiffs) without any contact from the debtor to arrange an acceptable payment plan”. As the offers of alternative items were only made after bailiffs were removing the van, the bailiff did not have to accept the alternatives offered by Miss X.
27. This information is also readily available from government guidance, which says bailiffs do not have to accept offers made to them.
28. Miss A says she was not given documentation at the scene of the removal. I have reviewed the Council records and cannot say what documentation was provided when the van was seized.
29. Council records show neither Miss A or Mr B could provide evidence of the van belonging to them during the recovery. It is therefore possible the bailiffs did not provide them with a copy of the removal details.
30. However, the bailiffs wrote to the owner of the van, Mr B, two days later with details of where the van was located and how to pay the outstanding balance. This would have stopped further action.
31. I therefore do not find fault with the Council for the decision to remove the van.
32. However, Miss A wrote to Council officers to try and communicate the impact the removal of the van was having on her business. The Council told Miss A that it should not have removed the van if it was “tools of the trade”.
33. The Council later said to Miss A that it could remove the van because its value was over £1,500.
34. Government guidance says that “tools of the trade” can be removed if they are valued at over £1,350.
35. By telling Miss A that it should not have removed the van because she needed it to work, the Council led Miss A to believe the van had been wrongfully removed.
36. Although the Council corrected itself later, it did not recognise the wrong information and advice it gave Miss A.
37. This was fault by the Council and caused Miss A distress and confusion.

The valuation and selling of the van

38. The bailiffs completed a valuation check on the van when it was removed, which valued it at £11,600.
39. As previously addressed, bailiffs do not have to accept offers of other items to cover the debt. The bailiffs also recorded the other items offered would not have covered the debt.
40. The van was sold at auction for £10,960. This is close to the estimate completed by the bailiffs. Any outstanding money was returned to Mr B.
41. Communication to Mr B explained that added fees for the bailiffs and for storage of the van would also be taken from the final auction price.
42. The van was removed on 6th August 2019. The bailiffs wrote to Mr B on 8th August 2019 and him of the van’s whereabouts and how to settle the debt. It advised Mr B that he had until 22nd August 2019 to pay the debt or the van would be listed for sale.
43. Mr B did not pay the debt and tried to provide witness statements to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) to appeal the action from the PCN’s. The bailiffs paused action on the van until the outcome of the TEC.
44. Mr B’s requests to the TEC were denied, and therefore action could resume on the van. As Mr B did not pay the debt, the van was listed for sale and sold at auction in October 2019. Records show there was about six weeks between the van being listed and being sold. It is my view this is a reasonable amount of time to arrange and sell the van at auction. The fees taken from the final amount were set out in the communication to Mr B, and he was informed of the actions being taken by the bailiffs to sell the van. I therefore do not find fault with the Council and bailiffs for how it managed the value of the van.

Complaint handling

45. Miss A also complains about the Council’s complaint handling of her complaint. I have reviewed the correspondence between the Council, Miss A and Mr B. The Council provided a stage one response within the timeframe in its complaints policy.
46. The Council accepts there was a delay in responding to the stage two complaint and apologised for the delay in its response.
47. It is my current view this is a suitable remedy by the Council, and that a delay in the stage two response did not cause Miss A or Mr B significant injustice.
48. I have reviewed communication between the Council and Miss A. It is my view there is a significant amount of correspondence and it is clear Miss A was frustrated with the action taken by the Council. However, I have not seen evidence of inappropriate communication by the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

49. The Council has agreed that, within four weeks of my decision, it will

• Apologise to Miss A for providing her with misinformation and advice and pay her £100 for the distress and confusion caused by this.

Back to top

Final decision

50. I have now completed my investigation. I find no fault with the Council’s decision to remove the van. I find fault with the Council for giving misinformation to Miss A. This caused her distress and confusion.

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

51. Part of Miss A’s complaint centres around a general lack of parking in the local area. This is not something the Ombudsman can consider because we cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a Council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)
52. A further part of Miss A’s complaint is that she received parking tickets due to the lack of parking in the local area. The Ombudsman does not investigate complaints about parking tickets, this is because the owner of the van has the right to appeal the tickets at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman