Summary: The Council is at fault for wrongly sending a council tax case to Enforcement Agents. It is also at fault for not properly considering if the complainant was vulnerable or if she needed reasonable adjustments. It also failed to properly investigate complaints made to it and the Agents. The Agents threatened action they could not take. The Council caused significant and unnecessary time, trouble and distress to the disabled complaint. To put this right the Council will apologise and pay the complainant £1,400. It will also take action to prevent this happening again.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council;

• Failed to make reasonable adjustments;
• Failed to send her a Direct Debit form;
• Failed to send her important documents including a summons and liability order;
• Put a payment into the wrong account;
• Wrongly took enforcement action against her and delayed resolving this;
• Failed to deal with her complaint about the Enforcement Agents;
• Both the Council and the Enforcement Agents failed to take her vulnerability into account or follow a proper process.

2. Ms X says because of the Council’s fault she paid her remaining council tax in a lump sum when she could not afford this. She says she also suffered stress affecting her mental health dealing with the Council and Enforcement Agents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered information from Ms X and the Council.
7. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on a draft version of my decision before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and policy

The Equality Act 2010

8. The Act applies to any organisation that carries out a public function. It aims to ensure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
9. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means the public body cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use its services but must think in advance about what disabled people might reasonably need.
10. When the duty arises, the public body is under a positive and proactive duty to look at removing or preventing obstacles to a disabled person accessing its services. If the adjustments are reasonable it must make them.
11. If a disabled person has a “substantial disadvantage” compared to a non-disabled person, the public body must consider the following:

• changing the way it does things;
• if it can remove barriers created by the physical features of a building, if the building is open to the public or a section of the public;
• if it can provide extra aids and services to help the disabled person access the service.

Council tax recovery

12. Before a council can pursue someone for council tax it must send a demand. If a taxpayer misses a payment, the council must issue at least one reminder notice before issuing a summons for a liability order in the magistrates’ court. If the debtor does not pay the council can refer the debt to enforcement agents.

The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

13. Before taking control of goods (in other words visiting to take goods) an enforcement agent must issue a notice of enforcement on the debtor seven clear days before the agent takes control of goods. This is called the compliance stage. Once an agent makes a first visit the compliance stage is over and the enforcement stage has begun.
14. An enforcement agent can take control of goods on premises he has the power to enter and re-enter. This is the premises the agent reasonably believes the debtor usually lives at or carries on a business at. Entry to premises should be by the normal means of entry e.g. a door or gate and the agent cannot use force.
15. An agent can only take control of goods by securing them on the premises or highway, removing the goods or making a controlled goods agreement with the debtor. The agent must give the debtor a notice with details of the agent and say if the agent has entered the premises, and/or taken control of goods. If the agent has taken control of goods, he must give the debtor a list of goods he has taken control of, what the debtor owes and how, where and when the debtor can pay the debt to release the goods.
16. An enforcement agent may not take control of goods, make a controlled goods arrangement, or re-enter premises if the debtor is a child or the only person on the premises is a child or vulnerable person.
17. If the debtor does not pay or keep to an agreed arrangement the agent can move to the removal and sale stage. The agent does not have to remove goods to start this stage; just attend intending to remove. But he will have had to have already taken control of the goods.
18. An agent can re-enter to remove goods already taken control of but must give notice at least two clear days before doing this. The agent must sign the notice and give the following information:

(a) the name and address of the debtor;

(b) the reference number or numbers;

(c) the date of the notice;

(d) enough details of the controlled goods agreement, the repayment terms of which the debtor has failed to comply with, to enable the debtor to identify the agreement correctly;

(e) how the debtor has failed to comply with the repayment terms of the controlled goods agreement;

(f) the amount outstanding on the date of the notice;

(g) how and between which hours and on which days payment of the sum outstanding may be made;

(h) a contact telephone number and address at which, and the days on which and hours between which, the enforcement agent or the enforcement agent’s office may be contacted;

(i) the date and time by which the sum outstanding must be paid to prevent the controlled goods being inspected or removed for storage or sale; and

(j) that the enforcement agent may if necessary use reasonable force to re-enter the premises to inspect the goods or remove them for storage or sale.

19. The Government has set standard fees for enforcement agents. These are £75 for the compliance (letter) stage and £235 for the enforcement (visits) stage and £110 for the sale and disposal stage. (The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014)
20. If the debtor is vulnerable the enforcement fee is not recoverable until the bailiff has, before taking goods into control, allowed the debtor an adequate opportunity to get assistance and advice. (The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014)
21. If an authority knows a debtor may be vulnerable it should tell the bailiff when it passes them the debt.  If a bailiff finds a debtor to be vulnerable they should let the authority know.

The Council’s revenues recovery policy

22. “Officers within the revenues service and partner organisations involved in the collection of council tax and business rates have a duty to identify citizens who may be vulnerable.”
23. “Final notice. Where someone does not pay the full amount due following a reminder notice, or having caught up falls behind again, a final notice will be sent requiring payment of the remaining charge for the year in full within 7 days, as failure to pay will lead to the issue of a summons.”
24. “14-day letter. Once a liability order has been granted, we send a notice (known as a “14-day letter”) stating that the liability order may be passed to an enforcement agent within 14 days unless a payment arrangement is agreed.”
25. “Cases are only sent to enforcement agents where

• no contact has been made to raise any issues, and/or an arrangement has not been made (or has been broken); and
• council tax support is not in payment, and alternatives such as deductions from benefit, attachment of earnings or a charging order are not viable or appropriate.”

26. “If someone does not make contact, the enforcement agents will try to contact them by phone and send at least one further letter. If contact is still not made, or an arrangement is broken, the case may move to the enforcement stage and a further fee of £235 is added to the debt.”

The Council’s revenues vulnerability guidelines

27. “We adapt our debt recovery procedure to minimise any hardship or distress while helping vulnerable citizens address their financial responsibilities.”
28. “We recognise that some ways to recover debt are not appropriate in such cases, so we

• flag their account to show they may be vulnerable
• review their personal circumstances before taking any further debt recovery action, and place a hold on existing action where appropriate
• stop any action being taken by our enforcement agents (bailiffs)
• consider a customer's total indebtedness to us when considering repayment arrangements
• seek direct deductions from benefit where possible
• help citizens to claim council tax support and any relevant exemptions and discounts
• direct citizens to other sources of debt advice, such as Citizens Advice, Community Law and our own debt counselling service
• work with advice agencies to agree repayment schedules that are affordable and recognise a customer's priority debts.”

29. “If you think you may be vulnerable, let us know as soon as possible.”
30. “We will put a hold on enforcement action while we consider your case, and to give you time to seek debt advice.”

The Council’s code of conduct for enforcement agents

31. “Bailiffs should also be aware of other sensitive issues (examples; recent bereavement, recent unemployment, long term sickness) and refer to the City Council if further instruction/guidance is required.”
32. “Where the bailiff receives written enquiries they must be answered in writing in 14 days.”
33. “Bailiffs must not misrepresent or misquote the law at any time.”

What happened

34. In March 2018 the Council sent Ms X her council tax bill for 2018/2019. This totalled £876.52 and the Council wanted payments of £88 a month.
35. Ms X says she contacted the Council to ask it to set up a direct debit and got no response. The Council says it has no record of this. The Council has not provided a copy of its electronic running record of contact with Ms X so I cannot check this.
36. On 23 May the Council says it sent Ms X a reminder for payment of council tax. Ms X says she did not receive this. The Council makes a note on its records it has sent a reminder but does keep a copy of the letter.
37. On 20 June the Council noted it sent Ms X a summons for 18 July 2018 for non-payment of council tax. This was for the whole amount for 2018/2019 plus £69 costs. Ms X says she did not receive it. The Council does not have a copy of it.
38. On 4 July 2018 Ms X paid £300 towards her council tax. The Council says she used the reference number for her 2014 council tax account, so the money went to that account. This created a £300 credit on the 2014 account.
39. On 22 July 2018 Ms X paid £200 towards her Council Tax.
40. On Friday 27 July Ms X received a letter dated 19 July 2018 from the Council. This said the Council had a liability order for £945.52 and if Ms X did not contact it within 14 days it would send the debt to enforcement agents.
41. Ms X emailed the Council Tax enquiry line on 29 July to say this is the first time she was aware of the alleged debt. She said she had already paid £500 towards council tax and the Council should not have got a liability order. She asked for an up-to-date bill. She also said she had made an official complaint. The Council did not reply to the enquiry or the complaint.
42. On 11 August the Council referred the account to enforcement agents. The agents started the compliance stage and sent Ms X an enforcement letter dated 14 August.
43. On 27 August the Agents sent a follow up letter to Ms X. Saying the Enforcement Notice remained active and she should contact them immediately to avoid the case going to the enforcement stage.
44. On 30 August 2018 Ms X paid the £376.52 remaining on her council tax for 2018/2019. She sent an email to the Council Tax email. The Council acknowledged this but have not provided me with a copy of Ms X’s email.
45. On 31 August Ms X asked her MP for help as the Council had not replied to her. She told her MP she had a disability. Her MP forwarded this to the Council.
46. The Council contacted the Agents and told them to put a hold on the account because of the MP’s enquiry.
47. On 3 September Ms X made another complaint to the Council via a “resolver” account she had set up, she asked the Council to reply to that account. She said the Council had

• failed to set up a direct debit for her.
• failed to tell her it thought she was in arrears or that it would apply for a liability order.
• failed to make a note of her payments; she was not in arrears but in advance
• referred her to enforcement agents
• failed to reply to many communications she had sent over many months.

48. Ms X said she had a disability.
49. Ms X also made a complaint to the Agents. She said she had a disability and the Council had sent the case to them in error as she did not have arrears. She asked the Agents to refer the case back to the Council and to respond to her promptly. The note made by the Agents says the case was on hold and so it would take no further action.
50. The Council replied to the MP on 4 September. It did not encrypt the email. It said it had followed the correct process. It said when Ms X received the liability order she did not telephone it and arrange to pay the outstanding balance. It said Ms X emailed it on 29 July to say she had paid £500. It said she had not paid £500 by 29 July she has paid £200 on 22 July and has made a further payment of £376.52 on 30 August. It said it had asked the Agents to put a hold on the account for 28 days so Ms X could telephone them and discuss payment.
51. On 5 September Ms X told her MP the Council was wrong, it had not told her what it intended to do, and she had made a payment of £300 not mentioned by the Council. She said she had asked the Council to respond by email and she wanted it to respond directly to her so she could complain to us. The MP asked the Council to respond directly to Ms X on the issues she had raised.
52. The Council replied by post to Ms X on 7 September. It said it had an electronic record it had sent the right notices to her. It said the first payment it received from her was £200 on 22 July; after the liability order. It said it had put enforcement on hold until 1 October. It said she should contact the Agents immediately to arrange to pay.
53. As Ms X had not received an email response as requested, on 13 September she emailed the Council another copy of her complaint of 3 September. The Council replied it had received her complaint of 3 September and started an investigation and would respond by 25 September.
54. On 20 September Ms X sent an email directly to an Assistant Director. She said because of her disability she needed to communicate by email. She again asked the Council to reply to her resolver account.
55. On 25 September the Council replied to Ms X’s email account not the resolver account. It attached copies of the email of 4 September and letter of 7 September and apologised for sending the letter by post. It told her she could ask for a review of its complaint response. It said if she needed further help she should telephone the Customer Service Team. It encrypted the email and attachments.
56. Ms X replied that she had asked the Council to reply via resolver as the Council had failed to reply to correspondence from her. She asked the Council to send the documents again to the resolver account as she could not access them from the email sent by the Council because of the encryption. She said she had told the Council she needed to communicate by email because of her disability but it still insisted on telling her to telephone.
57. On 26 September the Council Tax Department followed up its email of 30 August with a new email. It asked for Ms X’s address and the nature of her complaint. Ms X replied with her address and said she had already explained her complaint. She said “please note that due to the nature of my disability I am unable to make phone calls”.
58. On 1 October the Council sent Ms X another copy of its response of 25 September. It encrypted the message and attachment and did not send them to the resolver account. On the same date the Council told the Agents to carry on with enforcement action.
59. On 2 October the Council posted a letter to Ms X. It said it must encrypt all data sent by internet. It said Ms X could contact the Council by telephone or internet. The following day the Council sent a copy of the letter to Ms X’s resolver account.
60. On 11 October the Agents sent a letter to Ms X saying she owed £444. If she did not pay this an Agent would call and this would incur considerable extra costs for her.
61. On 16 October Ms X told the Council she could not open the encrypted emails and attachments. She asked the Council to send the information again, unencrypted, to her resolver account. The Council replied it had to encrypt emails containing customer’s details. It said to open the emails she had to download a free programme. It said if she did not want to do this it could send documents by post.
62. Ms X said due to her disability she wanted the Council to make a reasonable adjustment by communicating with by unencrypted email to her resolver account. She said this would allow her to store and access the information in the same place.
63. The Council agreed to send unencrypted emails but did not tell Ms X.
64. On 17 October an Agent went to Ms X’s house and left a removal notice. This said Ms X now owed £674. It said the Agent would return and was authorised to remove her goods for sale at public auction. The notice had four tick boxes for the agent to say when he would return with removal contractors. The four choices were one evening this week; one morning this week; between 7 pm and 9 pm today; and this weekend. The Agent ticked all four. The notice said to avoid this action Ms X had to telephone the Agent named below to arrange payment. The Agent gave his first name and mobile telephone number.
65. On 25 October Ms X asked the Council if it would confirm she had paid the council tax in full and referred the account to Agents in error. She also asked if she could complain to us now.
66. On 27 October Ms X emailed the Chief Executive and asked for help as the problem had made her health and disability worse. She said the Council and the Agents had failed to make reasonable adjustments. She said the Council had not resolved her complaint as she did not have arrears and the account should not be with Agents. She asked the Council to put the account on hold. She sent two further emails that day. She explained that due to her disability she could not make telephone calls but the Council kept telling her to make a payment arrangement over the telephone. She said the Agents had not replied to her complaint to it and had not followed the proper procedures. She apologised for sending the information in a fragmented way but said this was due to her disability.
67. Ms X also went back to her MP for help.
68. On 29 October the Council told the Agents to put another hold on enforcement because of a complaint.
69. On 30 October Ms X said the Council was aware of the nature of her disability. She had to pay the whole council tax early as she could not make an arrangement by telephone. She said the only amount outstanding when the Council sent the case to the Agents were court fees which she disputed as it was unfair.
70. On 31 October the Council took the account back from the Agents. It told the Agents it had located £300 paid before it referred the case to the Agents and Ms X had paid in full. It told the Agents Ms X was vulnerable.
71. The Agents electronic records say Ms X is not vulnerable.
72. On 1 November Ms X complained to the Agents. She said they had not responded to her complaint. She said it had put a Removal Notice through her door, threatening to turn up at any time, which was against the regulations. She said the Agent had discriminated against her as a disabled person and failed to make any reasonable adjustments. She asked for a prompt response.
73. The Council replied to the MP on 6 November by unencrypted email. It said Ms X’s account was now clear and it had recalled the case from the Agents and removed all fees and court costs. It said it could not trace a direct debit request from Ms X. It said it would correspond with Ms X by her resolver account.
74. The Council replied to Ms X on 7 November. It said it had now identified a £300 payment Ms X made on 4 July into an old account. It had transferred this so now she only owed the £69 summons costs. It said had sent all notices to the correct address. It said it correctly charged the summons costs on 20 June as she had made no payments by then.
75. It said it had correctly passed the account to Enforcement Agents as she still had a debt and had not contacted the Council to arrange to pay it. It said it had decided to recall the case from the Agents and remove the fees and costs. It invited Ms X to provide information on how her disability affected her.
76. The Council wrote again to Ms X on 13 November. It said Ms X complained to the Agents on 3 September. As the Council also received a complaint and was dealing with it, the Agents did not respond. The Council accepted the Agents should have told her this. It said Ms X could make a complaint directly to the Agents. It said the Council was aware of its duties under the Equality Act and acted on them. It said the benefits department had some information about Ms X’s disability but could not share this with the revenue department.
77. The Council said it would consider improving its system so customers could tell the Council about a disability or need when setting up an online account with the Council.
78. On 18 November Ms X said the Council had not dealt with her complaint about the Agents. She said the Agents had ignored her email telling them she had a disability. It was sending letters claiming a large amount of money without a breakdown. An Agent had come to her house and put a removal letter through her door claiming £700; which terrified her. She wanted to know how the Council left her old council tax account open and why the Council had not told her this earlier. She also told the Council of its services she had made aware of her disability.
79. Ms X sent the Council a copy of the Agent’s letter dated 10 October and removal notice of 17 October.
80. On 20 November the Council contacted the Agents to ask if it had any other correspondence from Ms X. The Agents said they had another email from her dated 1 November. It had not scanned this on to the case but would do that now. The Council told the Agents it would respond and the Agents did not have to.
81. On 27 November the Council replied. It explained what had happened to her £300 payment. It acknowledged it could have found this sooner and apologised. It said the Agents did have another email from her dated 1 November but it did not download properly so they could not open it. It said the Agents had acted correctly and within their powers.
82. It said the Council and Agents were aware of their responsibilities towards vulnerable people and when aware of a disability can put a vulnerable indicator on their records. It said Council departments do not share information about peoples’ disabilities, so Ms X needed to let Revenue’s know what her difficulties are. It said she could now complain to us.
83. Ms X asked the Council to look again at her complaint about the Agents as they had broken the rules. She also wanted to know why the Council had not told the Agents she was disabled when it had known this from her original complaint. Ms X sent further emails explaining in detail why she thought the Agents had broken the rules.
84. She told the Council she has a disabling spinal injury following an assault. She said she is in constant pain. She could not manage telephone conversations as she often could not finish them or lost the thread of the conversation. She needed things in writing so she could take her time and read things again. She said she also had a mental health condition. She said the Council’s website did not tell people how to ask for reasonable adjustments and people should not have to keep telling officers about their disability.
85. The Council responded on 17 December. It repeated its view the Agents acted in line with the regulations. It thanked Ms X for information on her health and said it had put a note on her records not to contact her by telephone.

The Council’s response to us

86. The Council says its actions show it adhered to its recovery policy for vulnerable people. It says her MP told it Ms X was disabled and on the same day (3 September 2018) it told the Agents to put a hold on recovery. It says the Agents took account of Ms X’s vulnerability by agreeing to the hold. However, it accepts the responses to Ms X and her MP make no reference to Ms X’s statement she is disabled. It also accepts it did not ask for more information or consider withdrawing the case from the Agents.
87. The Council also accepts the notes made on 3 September only refer to the MP’s enquiry as a reason for the hold. It says therefore it lifted the hold on 1 October. It accepts if it had also made a note that Ms X stated she had a disability it would not have lifted the hold.
88. The Council says it decided against allowing residents to tell it about a disability or need when setting up an online account. It says this is because under data protection law it cannot gather personal for a non-specific use.
89. The Council says in June 2018 its process did not identify when a council tax account went into credit. It says it now has an automatic system for this it now transfers or refunds credits. It accepts it did not investigate Ms X’s claim she had paid another £300 when she first raised this. It also accepts it should have identified the payment when investigating her complaint.

Analysis

90. The Council says it has no record of Ms X asking to set up a direct debit. Ms X insists she sent two emails about this. The Council has not kept other emails from Ms X. It does not have a copy of the complaint she made on 29 July 2018, when she also sent a council tax enquiry. It does not have a copy of her email to council tax on 30 August 2018; it only has a copy of its acknowledgement.
91. The Council has not kept a copy of the reminder or summons therefore I cannot know if it printed and sent these letters. I also cannot know if there were any errors in the letters. I can say the Council did properly printed and send the liability order because Ms X received it.
92. The Council does not claim to have sent a final notice. As its policy says it will, this is fault.
93. The Council failed to deal with Ms X’s email of 29 July 2018. Ms X said she had already paid £500. The Council should have investigated if Ms X had paid more than the Council believed. The Council’s policy says it only sends cases to Enforcement Agents where the debtor has not contacted it to raise an issue. Despite this on 11 August it sent the case to Enforcement Agents. This is fault. The Council caused injustice as Ms X then had to deal with Enforcement Agents.
94. I have also seen no evidence the Council considered if it could get an attachment of earnings or a charging order before sending the case to Agents.
95. As the Council did not respond to Ms X she went to the time and trouble of complaining to her MP and setting up a resolver account.
96. From 31 August the Revenues Department knew Ms X had a disability. Officers have a duty when collecting tax to identify people who may be vulnerable. The Council says it followed its recovery policy for vulnerable people. It has no evidence of this, and I do not accept it did. It put the case on hold because of the MP enquiry, not because it considered Ms X might be vulnerable. It told Ms X and her MP the hold was to give her time to telephone the Agents and arrange payment. It then lifted the hold without considering Ms X’s vulnerability. This is fault.
97. The Council compounded this error by again not checking if Ms X had paid another £300. Ms X saw the alleged debt growing because of enforcement action when no-one had checked what she actually owed.
98. Ms X complained to the Agents on 3 September 2018. The Council’s code of conduct says if the Agents get written enquiries, they must answer in writing within 14 days. The Agents did not respond to Ms X. This is fault.
99. Ms X had told other Council Departments of her disability and not unreasonably expected the Revenue’s Department would be aware of this. When Ms X told the Department she was disabled at the end of August 2018, it did not ask the nature of her disability and if she needed any reasonable adjustments. On 20 September Ms X told the Council because of her disability she needed to communicate by email, she repeated this several times and told the Council she could not use the telephone. It took until the 13 November for the Council to ask Ms X about the nature of her disability. This is fault.
100. When the Council did consider if it needed to make reasonable adjustments for Ms X, it agreed not to contact her by telephone. If it had done this sooner, it could have told the Agents this. Because it did not, the Agents told Ms X on its removal notice that she had to telephone them.
101. Ms X had difficulty dealing with the encrypted emails sent by the Council. If it had considered reasonable adjustments sooner, it could have agreed to send unencrypted emails earlier.
102. The Council told Ms X it must encrypt all data sent by internet and all emails containing personal information. I asked the Council why. It did not provide a policy but said it encrypts all emails with customers details. I have seen the Council’s policy on sending data securely between organisations. I have seen no policy that says it will encrypt all emails sent to the public containing customer details. The Council is welcome to send me any policy that says this. If it has such a policy it broke it, as it sent unencrypted emails with Ms X’s details to her MP.
103. Ms X asked the Council to email her resolver account. This is a reasonable request. The Council did not do this. It mainly sent emails to another email account or put documents in the post.
104. Ms X was already stressed by the situation and coping with a disability. The Council’s original insistence on encrypting emails and ignoring her requests to email her resolver email created further barriers and added to her distress.
105. Ms X’s case should not have been with Agents and the Council should not have lifted the hold on the Agents actions. Ms X complained the Agents did not follow due process. The Council said the Agents had acted correctly. Ms X is correct, the Agents did not follow due process. Until 17 October 2018 the Agents were at the compliance stage. They had sent an enforcement notice and two follow up letters but had not visited. On 17 October the Agents put a removal for sale at auction notice through her door when it should not have as they had not taken control of goods. The removal notice itself does not comply with the regulations. It does not give two days clear notice and does not include the required information. This is fault.
106. Ms X provided the Council with the notices from the Agents, so it is difficult to understand how the Council concluded the Agents followed the correct process. The Council’s code of conduct says an Agent must not misrepresent or misquote the law at any time. This is exactly what the Agent did by serving the removal for sale notice when he had no power at that point to remove goods for sale.
107. The removal notice caused injustice as it terrified Ms X, especially as the Agent threatened to return at any time, even that night.
108. The Council told Ms X she could complain direct to the Agents, Ms X did this again on 1 November but got no response. When the Council queried this the Agents said they had the email but had not scanned it on to the case. This was against the code of conduct, as they should have sent a written response within 14 days. The Council should have raised this formally with the Agents. Instead it told the Agents it would reply; even though it had told Ms X to complain to the Agents. It then wrote to Ms X and wrongly said her email of 1 November would not download properly so the Agents could not open it.

Agreed action

109. We publish guidance on remedies. Where action by enforcement agents occurred because of fault by a council, we anticipate the council should provide a distinct remedy for the distress this caused. We usually recommend a “modest” amount of between £100 and £300. We recommend more if the distress is greater, an example is when the complainant is vulnerable. In this case Ms X’s health suffered and the Council and Agent failed to consider her vulnerability. I consider this case merits double our usual highest amount.
110. The Council also caused Ms X unnecessary time and trouble. We usually recommend a payment between £100 and £300 for time and trouble. I consider the unnecessary time and trouble the Council caused merits the high end of the range.
111. The Council also caused unnecessary distress in how it dealt with Ms X and her complaints. It did not find out about reasonable adjustments, did not consider her vulnerability and did not properly investigate her complaints. I consider the Council should pay Ms X £500 in recognition of the distress it and the Agents caused her.
112. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with the actions of the Council and the Enforcement Agents, I made recommendations to the Council.
113. To put matters right for Ms X the Council has agreed that within a month of my final decision it will:-

• Apologise to Ms X
• Pay her £1,400 for the enforcement action, distress it caused and her time and trouble
• Tell the Ombudsman what action it will take so that in future revenue’s officers properly consider the need for reasonable adjustments when dealing with the public. The Council also should tell the Ombudsman what action it will take to ensure officers properly consider if a debtor is vulnerable.

Back to top

Final decision

114. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice. The Council has agreed to provide a remedy for this. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman