Birmingham City Council (18 005 413)

Category : Benefits and tax > Council tax

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 15 May 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms C complained the Council’s enforcement agents wrongly visited her property to enforce a debt when she had kept to the payment plan. There was no fault in carrying out a visit. However, the bailiff then failed to deal with the complaint properly and failed to investigate what had happened to a payment Ms C had made. The Council also failed to investigate properly. That led to Ms C having to go to time and trouble to pursue her complaint and facing enforcement costs she may have been able to avoid. Repayment of an amount to reflect the enforcement costs and a small payment to reflect Ms C’s time and trouble is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms C, complained the Council’s enforcement agents wrongly visited her property to enforce a debt when she had kept to the payment plan.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. If we are satisfied with a Council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. As part of the investigation, I have:
    • considered the complaint and Ms C's comments;
    • made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
    • considered Ms C’s comments on my draft decision; and
    • gave the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Ms C owed council tax arrears for two tax years. The Council passed those arrears to the bailiff to deal with. Ms C had in place a payment arrangement where she had to pay £10 per week for the two accounts. Ms C missed a payment in May 2018. Ms C contacted the bailiff about that on 6 June 2018. During that telephone call Ms C paid the £20 outstanding. The person Ms C dealt with on the phone told her the weekly payment arrangement of £10 would continue and Ms C would make the first payment on 13 June.
  2. On 11 June the bailiff sent Ms C a text message reminding her to make the first payment on 13 June. The bailiff sent another message on 15 June as it had not received a payment. That text message told Ms C to ignore the content if she had made a payment within the last five days.
  3. As the bailiff did not receive a payment an enforcement agent visited Ms C’s property on 20 June. That added £235 costs to her account.
  4. Ms C put in a complaint to the Council on 21 June.
  5. On 22 June an adviser telephoned the bailiff on Ms C’s behalf and it was identified a payment made on 12 June may have gone missing. The adviser provided the bailiff with a copy of Ms C’s bank statement to show the payment on 12 June. The bailiff withdrew enforcement action and placed a hold on recovery action for 14 days.
  6. Ms C complained to the bailiff on 25 June. The bailiff responded on 3 July. In that letter the bailiff confirmed it had listened to the telephone conversation with Ms C on 6 June 2018 and incorrectly said Ms C had asked for the arrangement to be set for £20 per week. The letter explained because the bailiff had not received a payment on 13 June the case was passed to an enforcement agent.
  7. On 17 July the Council responded to Ms C’s complaint, referring Ms C to the bailiff’s complaints procedure.
  8. On 24 July the Council instructed the bailiff to return the case to the Council as Ms C had entered an individual voluntary arrangement. The Council has now cancelled the council tax arrears.
  9. Ms C contacted the Council again on 18 October as she was dissatisfied with the way the bailiff had dealt with her. The Council responded on 24 October to tell Ms C it had cancelled recovery of her council tax arrears due to the individual voluntary arrangement. Ms C complained again on 7 November and said the bailiff had not provided the Council with the right information as she had paid before the enforcement agent’s visit. The Council responded on 13 November, referring Ms C back to the response provided by the bailiff.

Analysis

  1. Ms C says the Council’s enforcement agents wrongly visited her property to enforce a debt when she had kept to a payment plan. I understand Ms C takes that view because she believes the bailiff visited because it had wrongly said she had agreed to pay £20 per week following a telephone conversation on 6 June when she had only agreed to pay £10 per week. The evidence I have seen though satisfies me the bailiff sent an enforcement agent to Ms C’s property because it did not receive a payment on 13 June, which she had agreed to make during the telephone conversation on 6 June. There is no evidence the bailiff sent an enforcement agent due to an incorrect assumption about the amount Ms C was due to pay. It was purely the failure to pay on 13 June which prompted that visit. As the bailiff does not have any record of payment on 13 June, and no record of payment being received until 22 June which was following the enforcement agent’s visit, I cannot say the bailiff was at fault for sending out an enforcement agent on 20 June.
  2. I am aware though Ms C has a bank statement which shows a payment made to the bailiff on 12 June. It is clear from the documentary records the bailiff does not have a record of receiving that payment. There is no evidence Ms C told the bailiff about the payment she had made on 12 June until her adviser contacted the bailiff on 22 June. That was after the enforcement agent visited. As there is no evidence the bailiff knew about an alleged payment made on 12 June I cannot criticise it for sending an enforcement agent to Ms C’s property on 20 June.
  3. I am, however, concerned the bailiff did not pursue the matter further when Ms C’s adviser provided a bank statement showing a payment made on 12 June. The Council accepts the bailiff should have asked Ms C to provide a payment reference number to allow it to investigate the matter further. There is no evidence the bailiff did that. That is fault.
  4. I am also concerned about the communications in this case between the bailiff and Ms C. First, having listened to the telephone conversation on 6 June I am satisfied the person Ms C spoke to confirmed the arrangement in place was for her to pay £10 every Wednesday. In light of that I am concerned when the bailiff responded to Ms C’s complaint it stated she had agreed during the telephone conversation on 6 June to pay £20 every Wednesday. That is clearly incorrect. I do not consider it likely, on the balance of probability, the bailiff listened to the telephone recording as it said it had done before writing that letter. Including incorrect information in the letter is fault. I would also have expected the letter to deal with the evidence Miss C had provided of a payment on 12 June. Failure to do that is fault.
  5. I am also concerned about how the Council dealt with Ms C’s complaint. I would not criticise the Council for initially allowing the bailiff to deal with the complaint under its complaints procedure. However, when Ms C continued to raise concerns about the bailiff visiting her property when she said she had not breached the arrangement I would have expected the Council to investigate that matter itself. While I am satisfied the Council responded to the complaint again in November 2018 I am concerned it again relied on the response from the bailiff rather than conducting its own investigation. If the Council had done that it is possible Ms C would not have had to go to further time and trouble to get answers to her questions. Failure to investigate the specific concerns raised by Ms C is fault.
  6. I now have to consider what injustice the fault I have identified caused Ms C. As I said, as the bailiff had no information about any alleged payments made between 6 June and 22 June until after the enforcement agent visited on 20 June I cannot say that visit happened due to fault by the bailiff. However, Ms C has provided evidence to show she made the payment on 12 June. Almost 12 months later nobody has investigated what has happened with that payment. As it is clear the payment left Ms C’s bank account I recommended the Council make a payment of £235 to Ms C to reflect the bailiff charge she received. I made that recommendation on the basis of my view that if the matter had been dealt with properly in June 2018, the bailiff would likely have identified Ms C had made the payment and there had been no breach of the payment arrangement. That would then have likely resulted in the removal of the enforcement fee. The Council has agreed to that recommendation. The Council has also agreed to pay Ms C £100 to reflect the time and trouble she had to go to pursuing her complaint and remind the bailiff of the actions it needs to take when a customer says a payment has been made which has not been received.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
    • apologise to Ms C;
    • pay Ms C £335; and
    • write to the bailiff to remind it of the process to follow when a customer provides evidence a payment has been made which the bailiff has not received.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Ms C an injustice. The action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy Ms C’s injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings