Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of an enforcement agent acting on behalf of the Council. Mr X said the agent acted in a threatening and bullying manner which caused him avoidable distress. Mr X would like the Council to apologise and compensate him for the distress caused. We found no evidence of fault by the enforcement agent but evidence of fault in the complaint handling process. The Council has agreed a remedy to address the injustice caused to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the actions of an enforcement agent acting on behalf of the Council in relation to an unpaid Penalty Charge Notice. Mr X complains the enforcement agent acted in a threatening and bullying manner towards him causing avoidable distress and upset. Mr X says the actions of the enforcement agent left him in a depressed state.
2. Mr X also complains about the issuing of the Penalty Charge Notices and the recovery of the unpaid penalties being referred to a debt collection agency. He also complains the Council used a brand name, which he says he created, without his permission.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated the complaint listed at paragraph one. The final section of this statement explains why I have not investigated the complaints listed at paragraph two.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
8. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal considers parking and moving traffic offence appeals for all areas of England outside London.
9. 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)
10. 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

11. I have discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
12. I have made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
13. Mr X and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

14. Councils have powers to issue penalty charge notices (PCNs) to people if they do not follow parking and moving traffic rules. After issuing a PCN, the law sets out further steps councils must take to recover the penalty charge. These steps also give people opportunities to challenge the PCN, including to an independent Tribunal.
15. As a PCN passes along the legal steps, the amount payable increases. The legal steps may end with a council registering the charge as a debt with the court known as the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). If the debt remains unpaid, councils may then ask enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover the debt. Bailiffs will also add their recovery charges to the debt.

The Council’s complaints procedure

16. The Council’s corporate compliments and complaints procedure sets out its two-stage process for handling concerns and complaints. At stage one, it says concerns or expressions of dissatisfaction “will be sent to the most appropriate officer within the relevant service to contact the customer within five working days of the complaint being recorded, investigate and provide a response within 20 working days. In exceptional circumstances where this may not be possible, they will communicate with the customer and agree mutually agreed timescales.”
17. At the end of this process, if the complainant remains dissatisfied, they can ask the Council to escalate the matter to stage two as a formal complaint.
18. The procedure says “At this point, the [appropriate person] will work with the customer to establish their expected outcomes and a mutually agreed response time. The [appropriate person] will agree actions with the customer and proceed with an investigation to gather all information.”

What happened

19. Mr X received PCNs on 9 April, 11 April and 12 April 2018 for not displaying a valid parking permit in a residential area.
20. Mr X says he did not realise he was required to renew his resident’s permit annually following the introduction of a new parking policy by the Council. Mr X says he wrote to the Council to complain about the change in policy but did not appeal the notices. He said this was because he received so many at the same time, that to appeal them would only address the penalty notices, whereas he was unhappy with the way in which the Council had changed the parking permit rules.
21. The Council followed the steps set out by law to recover the penalty charges, including issuing Mr X with a Notice to Owner and a Charge Certificate to register the debt as a charge with the TEC in June 2018.
22. Mr X says he moved away from the area in August 2018.
23. In October 2019, the Council transferred the debt from one of the unpaid PCN’s to an enforcement agency.
24. Mr X complained to the Council in February 2020 about its use of a brand name which Mr X says he created.
25. The enforcement agency wrote to Mr X on 7 March 2020 and told him it had obtained a notice of enforcement for the unpaid PCN.
26. Mr X emailed the Council on 16 March 2020. He said he had not received any notification about the outstanding charges and asked the Council to investigate if his complaint about the Council’s use of the brand name was linked to the enforcement action.
27. Mr X complained to the Council on 17 March 2020. He said he received a telephone call from an enforcement agent during the previous evening and that the agent had bullied him and acted in an aggressive manner. Mr X said he was unwell at the time and the actions of the agent had worsened his health condition. Mr X asked for a recording of the telephone call as he said the agent told him the conversation was recorded.
28. At around the same time, Mr X complained to the Council about the actions of the enforcement agent, the issuing of the PCNs and the unresolved dispute about the Council’s use of the brand name. Mr X also submitted a further complaint on 23 March 2020 about the actions of the enforcement agent.
29. The Council told Mr X on 23 March 2020 it had passed his complaint about the enforcement agent to the enforcement agency acting on its behalf. It said it had no authority over the agency’s employees, company policies or working practices.
30. On 12 August 2020, the Council responded to Mr X. It explained how the unpaid PCNs had progressed to enforcement action and confirmed the complaint about the enforcement agent had been passed to the enforcement agency.
31. On 17 August 2020, the enforcement agency responded to Mr X. It said it did not have the facilities to record its enforcement agents’ mobile telephone calls and apologised if the agent had given Mr X incorrect information about this. It said it therefore had no corroborative evidence to substantiate Mr X’s complaint.
32. On the same day, Mr X emailed the Council and said the response from the enforcement agency was not a full and fair investigation of his complaint.
33. The Council replied on 27 August 2020. It said it was not responsible for the enforcement agency’s complaints procedure and advised Mr X to present his case to the TEC.
34. Mr X replied on the same day and asked for his complaint to be reviewed at a higher level.
35. Mr X and the Council continued to communicate via email and telephone about the unpaid PCNs and the use of the brand name. In November 2020, Mr X emailed the Council and said he had not received a reply to his formal complaint.
36. On 16 December 2020, the Council replied. As part of its response, it said it was not in a position to investigate any member of staff from the enforcement agency and said the agency had already provided its response.
37. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought his complaint to us.
38. Analysis – is there evidence of fault by the Council?
39. As stated at paragraph five, we can investigate complaints about the actions of organisations or private company’s providing services on behalf of a council. Our investigations make decisions based on the available evidence. Although the Council told Mr X it was not responsible for the actions of the enforcement agency staff, because the enforcement agency was working on behalf of the Council, the Council maintains responsibility for the actions of the agents working on its behalf.
40. I acknowledge Mr X’s comments about the content of the telephone call and the impact this had on him. However, the Council has confirmed the enforcement agency has no recording of the telephone call between Mr X and the agent on 16 March 2020.
41. As a result, there is no available evidence from either party to demonstrate the conduct of the enforcement agent. On this basis, and in the absence of any evidence to support Mr X’s complaint, I cannot find fault with the actions of the enforcement agent.
42. However, there is evidence to show the Council did not adhere to its complaints procedure. Mr X was dissatisfied with the Council’s stage one response and asked for the matter to be reviewed “at a higher level” on 27 August 2020. I have seen no evidence to demonstrate the Council worked “with the customer to establish their expected outcomes and a mutually agreed response time” as per its complaints procedure.
43. In addition, the Council did not provide a response until four months after Mr X asked for his complaint to be escalated. It said it was not in a position to investigate the agency staff. I consider this indicates the Council did not “proceed with an investigation to gather all information” as set out in its complaints procedure. I also consider the length of time taken to provide a response is evidence of delay. This delay, together with the lack of an agreed response time and further investigation of the complaint is fault by the Council.
44. Having identified fault, I must consider if this caused Mr X an injustice. Mr X says the actions of the enforcement agent acting on behalf of the Council caused him avoidable distress and upset. I acknowledge the Council has established there is no recording of the telephone call in question, and therefore the outcome of any further investigation may not have altered the findings of the stage two complaint. I also acknowledge I have found no fault in the actions of the enforcement agent. However, I consider the delay in replying to Mr X’s complaint and the apparent lack of further investigation into this aspect of the complaint at stage two contributed to Mr X’s feelings of distress.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:

• Provide an apology to Mr X;
• Make a payment of £100 to Mr X in recognition of the distress and upset caused, and;
• Remind staff to adhere to the Council’s complaints procedure.

The Council is required to provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I have found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to take the above action to resolve this complaint. I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

47. I have not investigated the complaints listed at paragraph two. This is because I consider it was reasonable for Mr X to exercise his right of appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and to make representations to the TEC regarding the recovery of the unpaid penalties. In addition, any decision relating to the alleged infringement of copyright or use of intellectual property is for the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman