Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to tell him about court proceedings or give him an opportunity to pay a fine before referring the matter to bailiffs and should not have instructed bailiffs when it knew he was vulnerable. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council managed the case before it referred the matter to bailiffs on the first occasion. There is no evidence the Council properly considered Mr B’s vulnerability before referring the case to bailiffs on the second occasion. The Council’s offer to reinstate the original £30 penalty charge is satisfactory remedy, alongside developing a procedure for dealing with vulnerable debtors.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the Council:
• failed to tell him about court proceedings, which prevented him defending himself;
• failed to give him the opportunity to pay the fine following the completion of appeal proceedings before the case was referred to the bailiffs; and
• wrongly instructed bailiffs twice when the Council knew he was vulnerable.
2. Mr B says the Council’s actions have caused him significant distress.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
6. Mr B and the organisation 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

What should have happened

7. The Transport Management Act (TMA) 2004 and Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (2008) sets out the law and guidance for councils carrying out civil parking enforcement.
8. There is a set procedure councils must follow when pursuing a parking charge notice. When a council issues a parking charge notice the motorist has 28 days to pay the penalty charge or appeal: appeals at this time are known as 'informal challenges'.
9. If the motorist submits an informal challenge to a parking charge notice and the council decides not to accept them, it will write to the motorist and explain why. If the motorist accepts the council's reasons, they may pay the parking charge notice; if not, they may wait for a 'notice to owner'. This provides a further opportunity for the owner of the vehicle to pay the charge or make 'formal representations' against the parking charge notice. If the council rejects the motorist's formal representations the motorist may appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
10. If an appeal is unsuccessful the council will issue a charge certificate, increasing the amount payable by 50%. It may then apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court to register the debt. Within seven days the council must then send an order informing the keeper that within a further 21 days from receipt of the order, they must either pay the amount outstanding or make a witness statement to the TEC.
11. If the debt remains unpaid and no witness statement has been made, the council may pass the debt to bailiffs to recover the amount owing. In addition, the bailiffs may recover their own costs, as laid down in the Regulations. The maximum amount bailiffs can add is currently £75 for the 'compliance' stage (writing to the debtor) and £235 for the 'enforcement' stage (visiting the debtor's property to obtain payment).

What happened

12. In September 2021 Mr B received a penalty charge notice for entering a bus lane. Mr B challenged that penalty charge notice and said there were no bus only signs on markings on the floor at the start of the road in question. The Council refused Mr B’s challenge and Mr B appealed. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal refused the appeal in November 2021 and told Mr B he needed to pay the penalty charge of £60 within 28 days. Mr B’s request for a review of that decision was refused.
13. Mr B contacted the Council again in January 2022 to raise concerns about the charge. In response the Council advised Mr B to pay the fine online or by phone as his appeal had been rejected. The Council explained if the penalty charge notice was not paid it would be registered as a debt at Northampton County Court which would allow the Council to pass the case to an enforcement agent who would apply their own fees.
14. Mr B told the Council he intended to pursue a judicial review. The Council told Mr B the adjudicator had already decided the road markings were compliant. The Council explained the process once the debt was passed to the bailiffs. The Council registered the debt at the County Court at the end of January and sent the relevant statutory declaration letters to Mr B.
15. As the Council had not received payment it referred the case to the bailiffs. On 25 May the bailiff wrote to Mr B with a notice of enforcement. On 11 June the bailiff visited Mr B’s address and clamped his vehicle. Mr B subsequently telephoned the bailiffs to tell them he was vulnerable and had multiple mental health issues. The bailiff removed the clamp and referred the debt back to the Council.
16. A Council officer spoke to Mr B about the debt on 15 June. The Council followed that up on 20 June with an email to Mr B to explain the Council would continue to take enforcement action unless the court instructed it not to do so as Mr B had submitted a judicial review application. The Council noted Mr B had said he was vulnerable. The Council subsequently offered to return the warrant and accept £30 for the original penalty charge notice.
17. In August 2022 the courts refused Mr B permission to pursue a judicial review.
18. In October 2022 the Council asked the bailiff to continue enforcement. The bailiff wrote to Mr B again and Mr B raised concerns about the charges which had increased the amount to £409. The bailiff told Mr B it had asked for the case to be returned to the Council.
19. In response to my enquiries the Council has offered to remove the bailiff fees and accept a £30 payment from Mr B as full and final settlement, as it had previously offered.

Analysis

20. Mr B says the Council failed to tell him about court proceedings, which prevented him defending himself. Mr B says the first he knew about court proceedings was when he received a letter from the bailiffs appointed by the Council. Mr B is referring here to the Council’s application to have the debt registered at the County Court. There is no requirement for the Council to provide Mr B with details of the date it intends to apply to the County Court to register the debt. I am satisfied though the Council told Mr B in January 2022 if he did not pay the outstanding penalty charge amount the Council would seek to register the debt and then pass it on to the bailiffs.
21. The Council is required though to write to Mr B once it registered the debt at the County Court to give him the opportunity to either pay the amount outstanding or make a witness statement to the traffic enforcement centre (TEC) at Northampton County Court. Although Mr B says he did not receive any letter following the debt being registered the Council’s records show it issued that letter on 31 January 2022. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.
22. Mr B says the Council did not give him an opportunity to pay the fine following the completion of appeal proceedings before it referred the file to the bailiffs. I am satisfied though at the end of appeal proceedings Mr B received a letter from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal adjudicator which made clear he needed to pay the penalty charge. I am also satisfied the Council told Mr B on 7 January 2022 he had exhausted the appeals procedure and he could therefore pay the fine online or by phone. The Council also told Mr B at that point if the fine was not paid the Council would register the debt at the County Court which would allow it to pass the case to an enforcement agent. As I am satisfied the Council followed the right process and told Mr B he needed to pay the fine in January 2022 I have no grounds to criticise it. The Council had made clear if Mr B did not pay the fine it would eventually be passed to bailiffs.
23. Mr B says the Council should not have instructed bailiffs twice when it knew he was a vulnerable adult. Having considered the documentary evidence, although I note Mr B put forward a robust challenge to the Council’s penalty charge notice on a number of occasions I have seen no evidence he mentioned any vulnerability until after bailiffs were instructed. Mr B says the Council should have known he was vulnerable given he receives disability benefits and is a Council tenant. However, there is no requirement for the Council to check with other departments before referring the matter to the bailiffs. As Mr B had not mentioned any vulnerability in correspondence with the Council before the matter was referred to the bailiffs initially I cannot criticise the Council for failing to take any vulnerability into account.
24. I am concerned though that once Mr B told the bailiff about his vulnerability and the debt was returned to the Council there is no evidence the Council considered Mr B’s vulnerability before returning the case back to the bailiff. I would have expected the Council to consider whether that was an appropriate route to follow or signpost Mr B to support, which is what the Council says it normally does, given it knew about Mr B’s vulnerability at that point. Failure to do that is fault. The Council has offered to remove the bailiff fees and allow Mr B to pay the original £30 penalty charge notice, which is the amount with the 50% reduction applied. I consider that an appropriate remedy for Mr B in this case given bailiff fees were not incurred due to fault by the Council. However, I recommended the Council also develop a procedure for how to deal with vulnerable debtors, particularly in relation to when it is appropriate to refer the matter to bailiffs. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. Within one month of my decision the Council should give Mr B a further opportunity to pay the penalty charge notice at £30 and confirm what action it will take if payment is not received within a specified period; and
26. Within two months of my decision the Council should develop a procedure for dealing with vulnerable debtors, particularly around referring cases to bailiffs.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Mr B an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman