Great Yarmouth Borough Council (17 020 172)

Mr X complained that the council had continued with enforcement action against his home address for an unpaid parking fine owed by the former occupier, Mr Y, despite Mr X providing evidence on several occasions that he was not liable and that the vehicle owner no longer resided there. There was found to be fault by both the council and the enforcement agents in consequence of which the council agreed to remedy the injustice by providing Mr X with a payment of £400 for avoidable distress and the time and trouble he spent pursuing the complaint and £17.94 for the costs he incurred in paying to trace Mr Y’s new home address himself.

Mr X moved into his new home in November 2016.  A parking penalty was issued against the previous owner, Mr Y, in May the next year. Despite twice supplying the council with proof of the change of occupier, a removal of goods notice arrived in October 2017 (there appears to have been no enforcement notice delivered).  Further exchanges of correspondence took place between Mr X and both the council and the enforcement agency.  Both accepted that Mr Y had moved away and stated that their records had been amended.  Nonetheless, in early December the bailiffs texted Mr X to the effect that they were about to attend to remove goods.  Mr X complained again and was told that the text had been sent in error by a new staff member.  Recovery action against his address was finally terminated.

The LGO found that both the council and the agency had been at fault.  Matters had certainly not been helped by the fact that they received information from the DVLA directly contradicting information that the DVLA had sent to the householder.  Nevertheless, given these discrepancies, the LGO felt that both creditor and bailiff ought to have carried out further checks.  There was miscommunication by both. 

Mr X was put to significant time and trouble over an eight-month period. He sent numerous letters and documents to the council and bailiff company; he made several phone calls to them and also contacted the DVLA on several occasions. He took it upon himself to pay a fee to search for Mr Y’s new address. The council had refused to reimburse Mr X for the cost of this search on the grounds that he had not been acting on any request or instruction from them and was not himself obliged to investigate the whereabouts of Mr Y- nor could the information obtained legally be used. Yet, the evidence shows bailiffs used this new address to pursue the debt. However, Mr X had felt frustrated that he was not being listened to and that the evidence he was providing was not being considered and it was in an attempt to put a stop to the matter that he paid for the search.  In light of these matters, the LGO awarded compensation to the complainant.