The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council wrongly pursued him for unpaid parking fines. This is because there is no significant injustice to warrant an investigation and further investigation would not achieve anything more.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council wrongly pursued him for unpaid parking fines. He said this caused him and his family distress and frustration. He wants the Council to provide him with a financial remedy.
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: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X’s representative and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In 2024, the Council issued several parking fines to the owner and registered keeper of a vehicle which was registered to location A. Despite the Council sending notifications to location A, the parking fines remained unpaid. The Council then passed the debt onto its contracted enforcement agency.
In early 2025, Mr X who lives in location B, complained to the Council. He said: an enforcement agency had sent him letters in relation to unpaid parking fines. Mr X said the vehicle was not registered to his address and the owner and registered keeper of the vehicle did not reside at his address either; the enforcement agency had offered to cancel the visit from a bailiff if Mr X provided a council tax bill to support his claim; and his family were vulnerable and the matter had caused him and his family distress. Mr X wanted the Council to provide him with a financial remedy.
The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint and responded to him. It said: it had sent the parking fines to the correct address of the owner and registered keeper of the vehicle which was location A. It also provided the enforcement agency the address of location A; and once the enforcement agency receives a case, it uses its own processes to verify the address of the owner and registered keeper with information from the DVLA (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency) database. In this case, the owner and registered keeper of the vehicle had not put in their complete address on the DVLA database and so their address appeared similar to Mr X’s. Furthermore, the enforcement agency’s process found the postal code was incorrect and instead provided the postal code of Mr X’s address, location B.
The Council informed Mr X the vehicle details were no longer registered to his address. It apologised to Mr X for any anxiety and distress the letters from the enforcement agency had caused him and his family.
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has already explained to Mr X how the error had occurred, apologised to him for any injustice caused and removed the vehicle details from his address. I have also noted that although Mr X received correspondence from the enforcement agency, the bailiffs did not actually attend his property. There is no significant injustice to warrant an investigation and further investigation would not add anything more.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no significant injustice to warrant an investigation and further investigation would not achieve anything more.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman