LGO criticises council for "unnecessary" bailiff action over parking fine

The Local Government Ombudsman has attacked a local authority for its rigid following of procedure, which led to a woman suffering “unnecessary” bailiff action over a parking fine and having to pay more than four times the amount for which she was initially liable.

The resident had complained that Bexley Council had pursued her at an old address for a penalty charge notice of £100.

The woman had not informed the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of her new address and had not put in place a mail forwarding arrangement.

She became aware of the fine on collection of post from her old address. This included details of the PCN and charge certificate advising her of an increase in the fine to £150.

The woman then contacted the council about her change of address and asked to pay the reduced fine of £50 as she had missed the opportunity to do so.

Bexley did not respond to her letter. It proceeded to pursue the debt to bailiff action but its correspondence was still sent to her old address.

Six months after her letter about the address, the woman paid £629.95 to the bailiffs to settle the debt.

In her complaint to the LGO, she argued that Bexley should have responded to her letter informing it of her change of address. The bailiffs’ action would then have been avoided, she claimed.

The LGO, Dr Jane Martin, said that, whilst the local authority had followed the correct recovery process, it at no time considered its discretion. She also concluded that Bexley did not consider the woman’s correspondence and failed to update its records.

The council had rigidly followed its automated recovery process and did not consider the individual circumstances or the use of its discretion, the LGO added.

Dr Martin said the woman’s own initial failings meant she had lost the opportunity to pay the original fine or the reduced amount. However, the LGO also decided that the complainant would have paid the £150 fine had such failings not occurred, “because at no time did she seek to evade payment of the debt”.

The bailliff action was “unexpected and avoidable”, the Ombudsman said.

Dr Martin recommended that Bexley pay the complainant £479.95 – the difference between the £629.95 paid and the £150 she could have paid had the local authority not fettered its discretion.

She also called on the council to undertake a review of its automated PCN recovery procedure, “ensuring that correspondence is considered even if received outside the statutory notification period to ensure it considers its discretion based on the individual circumstances of each case”.