Summary: the Council gave Mrs B wrong information about her options when she contacted the Council about a penalty charge notice, failed to consider alternative options in light of Mr B’s vulnerability and delayed telling enforcement agents about the circumstances. An apology, agreement to take the debt back from the enforcement agent and consider a payment plan, payment to Mrs B, training for officers and amending the Council’s vulnerability policy is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, is being represented by his mother, whom I shall refer to as Mrs B. Mrs B complained the Council:
• misled her about the options available to the Council when she contacted it about Mr B’s penalty charge notice (PCN) in September 2022;
• failed to consider alternative options when Mrs B made the Council aware of Mr B’s vulnerability: and
• delayed telling the enforcement agents about Mr B’s vulnerability and that he had moved out of his property, which resulted in another visit and additional costs.
2. Mrs B says the Council’s actions have caused her significant distress and led to her having to go to time and trouble to pursue the complaint.

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 Mrs B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
6. Mrs 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

Statutory declaration process

7. Where a Council has registered an unpaid PCN as a debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC), acting as part of Northampton County Court, the owner of the vehicle has the right to challenge this. This is done by making a statutory declaration within 28 days, although the owner may apply to make the statement late. The TEC considers the application and can decide to take the process back to an earlier stage; this does not result in cancellation of the PCN but removes the basis for any additional costs and reinstates the owner's right of appeal.
8. The grounds on which the owner of a vehicle can make a statutory declaration are:
• they did not receive the PCN;
• they made representations about the penalty charge to the enforcing authority within 28 days, but did not receive a response;
• they appealed against the Council's decision to reject their representation within 28 days but did not receive a response to their appeal.

Parking services vulnerability policy

9. The Council introduced a parking services vulnerability policy (the policy) in December 2022. This outlines various circumstances in which a person could be treated as vulnerable which includes those with mental health needs.
10. The policy says when managing the collection of a debt the fact someone is vulnerable does not mean they will not be required to pay the debt. However, the Council will look at each case individually and take the appropriate action dependent on the circumstances. It says there may be ways the Council can help such as by allowing extra time for payment, payment by instalments, holding cases to prevent them from escalating and not sending cases to enforcement agents to ensure any debt is minimised.
11. The policy says the Council will adapt its recovery process where it is aware a resident is vulnerable to minimise any hardship or distress.
12. The policy says the Council may ask the person to provide some evidence, such as a doctor’s letter, to establish the nature of the vulnerability.
13. The policy says where a person is vulnerable the Council may still take enforcement action but it must be able to demonstrate it has reviewed the situation, taken account of all relevant factors and tailored the service to meet the needs and, where appropriate, considered alternative courses of action.

What happened

14. The Council issued a PCN to Mr B in January 2022. That PCN related to a traffic offence. The Council gave Mr B the option of paying 50% of the amount due (£65) within 14 days and invited him to make any representations. The letter said if Mr B did not make the payment or make representations within 28 days the charge would increase to £195.
15. The Council sent Mr B a charge certificate in February 2022 as he had not paid the PCN. The Council asked for payment of £195 within 14 days. The Council told Mr B if it did not receive payment within 14 days it may apply to the County Court to register the charge certificate. The Council said that could result in additional charges and a warrant being issued to enforcement agents to recover the debt.
16. The Council gave Mr B two more opportunities to pay the £195 debt in March and April 2022. When Mr B did not pay the Council had the debt registered at Northampton County Court which increased the amount due to £204. The Council sent the case to an enforcement agent in July 2022.
17. The enforcement agent wrote to Mr B in July 2022 and visited his property in September 2022. That visit showed the property was empty and the enforcement agency traced another address for Mr B.
18. On 15 September Mrs B emailed the Council to tell it Mr B had been struggling financially and with his mental health. Mrs B told the Council Mr B had now had a nervous breakdown and was in the hands of the professionals. Mrs B said Mr B had been homeless and sofa surfing but was now living with her. Mrs B told the Council she had found the PCN amongst Mr B’s belongings. Mrs B asked the Council to reissue the original notice and she would make arrangements to pay it.
19. The Council told Mrs B the case was now with the enforcement agent. The Council told Mrs B she needed to contact the TEC to request an out of time statutory declaration. The Council said this was the only way the matter could be resolved at that stage.
20. When Mrs B contacted the TEC though she identified there were no grounds for Mr B to apply for a statutory declaration. Mrs B therefore returned to the Council. This was on 12 October when Mrs B offered to pay £10 a month to clear the debt. In response the Council advised Mrs B to go back to the enforcement agent.
21. Mrs B contacted the Council again on 24 October to point out it had not provided any contact details for the enforcement agent. Mrs B reiterated Mr B did not have grounds to make a statutory declaration as he had received the PCN but had not opened the letter. Mrs B again offered a payment plan of £10 per month. In response the Council directed Mrs B back to the enforcement agent. The Council also said with fees the outstanding amount was £279. The Council told Mrs B she should file the out of time paperwork for the statutory declaration to slow the process down.
22. An enforcement agent visited the second address it had identified for Mr B, which he was not living at, on 25 October and again on 16 November. The further visit incurred a fee of £235. The Council asked the enforcement agent to remove that fee. I understand that has now been done.
23. The enforcement agent began communicating with Mr B at Mrs B’s address in December 2022. The Council asked the enforcement agent to put the case on hold towards the end of December 2022.
24. In January 2023 Mrs B again offered to pay £10 per month. The Council said it wanted the debt of £279 paid over eight months. Mrs B told the enforcement agent she could only afford £10 a month as a pensioner but was happy for the amount to be reviewed in six months to see whether Mr B had sufficient resources by then to increase the amount paid. The enforcement agent suggested Mrs B contact the Council as it had previously refused the payment plan offered.

Analysis

25. Mrs B says the Council failed to consider Mr B’s circumstances when she contacted it about a PCN in September 2022. Mrs B says the Council gave her incorrect information about how to proceed, failed to consider alternative options and delayed telling the enforcement agents about Mr B's vulnerability and his new address.
26. I am concerned about the advice the Council gave Mrs B when she contacted it in September 2022. In response to Mrs B’s email the Council told her the only way the matter could now be resolved was for her to complete an out of time statutory declaration. This relates to the statutory declaration process which I refer to in paragraph 8. I am concerned about the advice the Council gave Mrs B given her email of 15 September 2022 made clear Mr B had received the PCN. That should have put the Council on notice Mr B would not be able to complete an out of time statutory declaration as he did not satisfy any of the requirements. I am particularly concerned that despite Mrs B pointing out the fact Mr B could not put in a statutory declaration the Council has continued to advise her to do so and reiterates the same advice in response to my enquiry. That does not suggest to me those dealing with parking complaints understand the statutory declaration process. Giving Mrs B wrong advice is fault and led to her going to unnecessary time and trouble to contact the TEC when that was never an option in this case.
27. I am also concerned when dealing with Mrs B in September 2022 the Council did not consider whether there were other options available to it to deal with the debt. Mrs B was clear in her contact with the Council Mr B was vulnerable and she set out his vulnerability in some detail. Mrs B also told the Council she was willing to pay the original debt and asked the Council if it could reissue the original notice. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council properly considered Mr B's vulnerability when making its decisions in this case. That is fault.
28. It is clear though the Council also did not have a policy on how to deal with vulnerable debtors until December 2022. That may be why the Council failed to consider the issue properly in this case. Given Mrs B had given the Council information about Mr B's vulnerability and had indicated a willingness to pay I would have expected the Council to engage with her to identify a way forward rather than referring her to the TEC which was never an option for her in any case. Failure to consider Mr B’s vulnerability at that point and whether there were alternative ways to pursue the debt is fault.
29. I am also concerned that when Mrs B made a financial offer to pay the debt in instalments in October 2022 the Council failed to engage with her about that. Instead, the Council referred Mrs B back to the enforcement agent. As I said in the previous paragraph, by that point the Council had sufficient information to show Mr B was vulnerable. I consider it likely, on the balance of probability, if the Council had in place a policy on how to deal with vulnerable debtors at that point it would likely have acted differently as its officers would have had a better understanding of the options available. Failure to have a policy or procedure in place on how to deal with vulnerable debtors is fault.
30. I am concerned the Council delayed telling the enforcement agent Mr B was no longer living at his previous address and was vulnerable. The Council had that information on 15 September 2022 but did not pass it to the enforcement agent before 25 October 2022 when a further visit was undertaken to Mr B's previous address. That visit resulted in an additional £235 charge. There was also a further visit which should not have taken place in November 2022. I welcome the Council's decision to cancel the £235 charge to reflect the fact the visit would not have taken place had the Council passed the right information to the bailiff. However, I am concerned the Council again did not consider taking the debt back from the enforcement agent given Mrs B had made clear she was happy to set up a payment plan to resolve the debt.
31. In terms of a remedy for the complaint, Mrs B is not disputing the amount being pursued by the Council is owed by Mr B. Nor is Mrs B opposed to making payments to cover the debt as part of a payment plan. I am satisfied though failures by the Council have led to Mrs B having to go to considerable time and trouble to pursue the complaint. I also consider it is likely Mrs B has suffered distress. As remedy for the complaint I recommended the Council take the debt back from the enforcement agent and consider what amount it should treat as owed. The Council should then liaise with Mr B/Mrs B to set up an affordable payment plan. I further recommended the Council pay Mrs B £200 to reflect her time and trouble and distress. In addition, I recommended the Council arrange a training session for officers dealing with parking fines to cover the statutory declaration process and dealing with vulnerable debtors. I also recommended the Council consider whether to amend its vulnerability policy to cover the circumstances where the Council becomes aware of a debtor’s vulnerability late in the process and after a case has been passed to enforcement agents. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• take the debt back from the enforcement agent;
• consider what amount should be treated as owed;
• liaise with Mr B/Mrs B to set up an appropriate payment plan which both agree is affordable;
• pay Mrs B £200 to reflect her time and trouble and distress.
• arrange a training session for officers dealing with parking fines to ensure they understand the statutory declaration process and the circumstances in which a statutory declaration can be made. That training session should also cover how to deal with vulnerable debtors and the options available once the debt has been passed to the enforcement agents; and
• consider whether to amend the Council’s vulnerability policy to cover the options open to the Council when it identifies a debtor’s vulnerability late in the process when the case is already with the enforcement agent.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman