Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (18 015 241)

Category : Benefits and tax > Council tax

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 14 May 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr K complained the Council should not have sent a summons for council tax arrears because it failed to respond to his correspondence. He says this could affect his credit rating. The Ombudsman’s decision is that the Council’s proposed remedy is appropriate.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr K, complains the Council sent him a summons for council tax arrears when he had advised it regarding new tenants moving in. The Council added costs and Mr K says he was put to time and trouble pursuing his complaint. He asked the Council to withdraw the summons and pay for a professional assessment of the impact on his credit rating. He asked the Council to compensate him for his time and trouble.

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. I have considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have also considered the complainant’s and the Council’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr K owned a property and rented it out to tenants. When the tenants moved out the Council sent a bill for council tax to Mr K.
  2. Mr K says that he waited until new tenants were confirmed by his agent before trying to call the Council. However, after waiting on the line he could not get through. When he tried a few days later he still did not manage to speak to someone. Mr K used the Council’s online notification to advise the Council the property would be let shortly, and he expected the agent to confirm the exact date to the Council in the next 7 days. He said he would make payment as soon as the Council sent him a bill for the period the property was empty.
  3. Mr K’s agent notified the Council 2 weeks later that the tenancy had started a few days earlier. However, the Council sent a reminder to Mr K for the full council tax. Mr K tried to call the Council but gave up after 30 minutes waiting. He used the Council’s online contact service to ask for a revised bill. He said the Council’s automated telephone service was the worst he knew.
  4. The Council did not respond and sent Mr K a summons 19 days later. It added summons costs of £60. The liability hearing date in court was in 3 weeks.
  5. Mr K tried to call the Council several times, but the service just gave a message that the telephone was not being answered and then cut off. Mr K emailed his councillor complaining that the Council was threatening him with recovery action but he could not get through by telephone. He wanted to pay but the Council was treating him as guilty. He had received a summons letter but no attached summons. He said the Council should investigate and make sure this never happened again.
  6. The Council replied that it had received the agent’s notification at the end of March. However, due to an increase in its workload at the time it had not processed this until the day after it issued the summons. It had withdrawn the summons and sent a new bill which Mr K had paid. The Council apologised that Mr K had difficulty accessing its service by telephone. It explained that March and April was the annual billing period and enquiries and calls increased significantly at this time. This meant that sometimes customers had to wait longer than usual.
  7. Mr K complained further and said that amongst other things
    • He and his agent had notified the Council earlier and by 29 March it had all the information it needed to send a revised bill.
    • The Council knew it was behind by 3 weeks in responding to enquiries and so should not have issued a summons
    • The Council had not sent a copy of the summons with the cover letter.
    • He tried to call 5 times and sent 2 e forms. His agent had called and written, but the Council had not replied. It only replied when he emailed his councillor.
    • The Council had apologised but did not acknowledge its error. The error would never occur if the Council’s resources were properly managed.
    • The Council had not recognised its mistake or identified changes it could make.
    • The Council should compensate him for the day and a half he had spent trying to contact it. It caused distress and should ensure his credit rating and reputation were not damaged.
  8. The Council replied that it had received the agent’s information by 26 March and then Mr K’s email asking for a correct bill. But it had not allocated the work to an officer until 18 April 2018 which was after the summons had been issued. It apologised for the delay in processing. It said it could not increase its staffing resources but took steps to try to manage the workload. The Council provided a copy of the summons and assured Mr K it had no impact on his credit rating. The summons was to a magistrates court not a County court. The Council accepted it had issued the summons incorrectly because it had information it had not processed. It explained it had withdrawn the summons and costs when it was aware, and the summons was not presented to the court. The Council upheld Mr K’s complaint and offered him £25 due to the distress caused.
  9. Mr K complained further at the end of May 2018. He said
    • The Council did not explain why it had not sent a summons at the time. It had caused him anxiety as he did not know the details.
    • The Council had assured him that his credit rating was not affected but he expected the Council to pay for a professional assessment.
    • The Council had not said what it would do to prevent a reoccurrence.
    • The Council had not explained how it had calculated the £25 it offered. He felt it was inadequate and did not take account of the cost of professional assessment of his credit rating.
  10. The Council received Mr K‘s complaint but did not respond until November 2018 despite Mr K chasing a response. It apologised for its delay in replying. It said
    • It was not aware of the reason why the system generated summons was incomplete. There were no IT issues and it had not had other complaints.
    • The Council did not consider it should carry out a professional assessment of the impact on his credit rating. It explained liability orders are not recorded on the public Register of Judgements Orders and Fines (Courts Act 2003) which is a public register.
    • The Council’s council tax team performance was closely monitored. It recognised that complaint had increased due to increased contacts from council tax payers. The Council had considered this in its recent budget proposals for the new year and had made some proposals to address this.
    • The Council considered the £25 it had offered was appropriate. It had a duty to protect public funds and it had considered the Ombudsman’s guidance regarding remedies. But it agreed due to its delay in providing a final response to increase this to £50.
  11. Mr K complained to the Ombudsman that the Council’s remedy was not sufficient. He said he had spent more than a day and a half contacting it and this led to a delay in him completing his dissertation for a higher degree. He had therefore lost out on earnings he would receive when he returned to work. While he said he did not need financial redress, he thought the Council should pay him £1200 to put him in the position he would have been in if it had not been for the Council’s fault. The financial penalty would in Mr K’s view ensure the Council did not make the same mistake in future.

Agreed action

  1. Mr K was put to some avoidable time and trouble due to the summons being issued in spite of his and the agent’s contact with the Council. The Council also delayed unacceptably responding to his final complaint.
  2. I do not consider the Council should pay Mr K £1200 for the incorrectly issued summons. Mr K comments that the remedy should be higher because of his projected calculation of lost earnings for his time and because a significant remedy would ensure the Council does not make the same mistake again. However, the Ombudsman’s remedies are not intended to be punitive, and the Council has taken other steps to address the matter.
  3. I consider that £50 is an appropriate and proportionate remedy which is line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. The guidelines state the Ombudsman considers whether a remedy puts a complainant back in the position they were in. In my view the removal of the summons, the Council’s apology and a payment of £50 will put Mr K back in the position he was in.
  4. I do not consider the time Mr K took in pursuing his enquiries and his complaint warrants the Council paying for lost potential earnings. Council tax payers may need to spend time making enquiries about their account and as a landlord, I would expect Mr K to sometimes spend time dealing with issues relating to his property. I have considered Mr K’s circumstances and the impact of the Council’s fault on him when making this decision.
  5. The Council did not obtain a liability order in court for the council tax arrears so I cannot see how the issue of the summons would affect Mr K’s credit rating. Even if it had obtained a liability order, this is not a court order which is recorded on a public register. I do not consider Mr K’s request for professional assessment of his credit rating is reasonable or necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has remedied the injustice that was caused by issuing a summons.

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