The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the actions of an enforcement officer during an enforcement visit. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.
The complaint
Mrs X complains about the actions of an enforcement officer during an enforcement visit. She says the officer improperly took control of her vehicle, failed to provide his full name, and attempted to enter her property despite being aware there was a child present.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide: we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Transport for London (TfL) instructed an enforcement agency to collect on a debt owed by Mrs X due to an unpaid penalty charge notice (PCN).
During the enforcement visit, Mrs X told the enforcement officer she had a blue badge, and that the car was financed. Despite this, Mrs X said the enforcement officer clamped her car. She also said the officer attempted to enter her property despite being made aware that a child was present in the property.
As TfL commissioned the enforcement agency, it is responsible for the enforcement agency’s actions. In response to the complaint TfL reviewed the enforcement officer’s body worn video footage and accepted the officer’s visit to the property did not meet the standards it would expect.
TfL apologised to Mrs X for the way the matter was handled. It also cancelled Mrs X’s PCN and arranged for a payment of £250 to be paid to her to recognise the distress caused by the visit.
An investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. TfL has acknowledged there was fault in the way the enforcement officer carried out the visit and has provided an appropriate remedy. The remedy provided is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and so an investigation is unlikely to lead to any further recommendations.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman