The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council unreasonably continued with recovery action for a debt, including referring the debt to the bailiffs, despite Mrs B’s efforts to pay the debt and make a complaint. We did not find fault with the Council for returning Mrs B’s cheque because it arrived too late, but it was at fault for not responding to her complaint. If it had done, this may have prevented the referral to the bailiffs. The Council has offered to allow Mrs B to pay the debt at the original reduced rate. We considered this is a reasonable way of putting matters right.
The complaint
Mrs B complained that the London Borough of Hackney (the Council) pursued recovery of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) debt via bailiffs and ignored Mrs B’s attempt to pay and the complaints she made via Resolver. It also failed to take into account her mental health issues and failed to explain why it did not accept her payment. This caused Mrs B significant distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
The Council issued a PCN in December 2020 for a traffic violation. The Council did not receive payment or any representations. Mrs B appealed to the London Tribunal against the PCN. The tribunal issued its first decision on 20 September 2021. It said Mrs B had failed to provide any evidence to show that she had challenged the PCN with the Council and so it found she had not followed the correct procedure. It said the only further route of challenge was by Judicial Review.
It issued an amended decision on 15 October 2021 allowing Mrs B 28 days to pay the PCN at the reduced rate of £65, by 12 November 2021.
Mrs B posted a cheque to the Council by first class post on 10 November 2021.
The Council had not received the cheque by 2 December 2021 and so it escalated the debt to the next stage, increasing the amount owed to £195.
The Council received the cheque on 8 December 2021 but as it was outside the deadline and it had escalated the debt to the next stage, it returned the cheque to Mrs B. It attached a note explaining why it was returning the cheque which was date-stamped as received on 8 December 2021.
Mrs B sent an email complaint via the Resolver website on 14 January 2022 explaining that she had tried to pay the debt, but the cheque had been returned. She referred to her mental health condition and sent medical evidence. She sent the same email on 28 January 2022 and the 11 March 2022. She did not receive a reply.
In the meantime, the Council had obtained an order for recovery via the court, increasing the debt to £204. In March 2022 it referred the debt to the bailiffs, who sent Mrs B a letter increasing the debt to £279. Mrs B complained to the Council, but it just advised her to pass her medical details to the bailiffs. It said she had not paid the PCN and so it had proceeded with enforcement action, but there was nothing more it could do.
Mrs B complained to us.
In response to my enquiries the Council said it has a record of Mrs B’s email being received in January 2022 but no further record as to why no response was sent. The officer concerned had been on sick leave since then and so the Council could not get any further information. It has offered to allow Mrs B to pay the original debt of £65.
Analysis The cheque was date-stamped as received on 8 December 2021 almost four weeks after it was sent. This is a very long time even allowing for the Council to process it. However, the delay may have been down to the postal service and so I cannot reach a safe conclusion that the Council was at fault.
I have also considered the fact that Mrs B sent her cheque by first class post, just two days before the deadline. Given that first class post can take two days to arrive she left it very late for the cheque to be received, opened, directed to the correct department and logged on its records. I have not found fault with the Council here.
As no payment was received, the Council was entitled to proceed to the next stage of recovery increasing the debt further.
But the Council was at fault for not responding to her email sent in January 2022. If it had considered the content and her health problems, it may have given her another opportunity to pay and avoided the referral to the bailiffs. However, it would still have been entitled to recover the increased amount of £195.
So, I consider the Council’s offer to allow Mrs B to pay the debt at the reduced amount of £65 is reasonable: it puts her back in the position she was in when she tried to pay in November 2021 and recognises the injustice caused by the failure to respond to her complaint in January 2022.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation because I consider the Council has taken sufficient action to resolve the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman