Summary. Mr C complains about the way the Council sought recovery of unpaid council tax. He says he has paid what was owed. Based on the evidence seen, I find that the Council was not at fault and is entitled to purse Mr C for the debt owed. There was some fault in the Council’s communication with Mr C about the debt, but this did not cause him any injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr C complains that the Council is pursuing him for council tax which he does not owe. He says because of this he has accrued enforcement fees and further fees have been added. Mr C says this has caused him distress and anxiety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered the complaint made by Mr C. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided.
5. I gave Mr C and the Council a copy of my draft decision and invited their comments. No comments were received.

Back to top

What I found

6. The primary legislation for council tax is the Local Government Finance Act 1982, The main secondary legislation concerned with collection and recovery is The Council Tax (administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (“the Regulations”). Councils are responsible for collecting council tax.
7. If a council tax payment is missed a council must issue a reminder notice at least seven days after the missed payment). If the arrears are not paid the balance for the full year then becomes due. A council can then complain to the Magistrates Court and issue a summons. A liability order hearing is then heard in the Magistrates Court. The court can then grant a liability order. Once a council has obtained a liability order it can take steps to recover the debt without any obligations to inform the debtor.
8. Bailiffs or ‘enforcement agents’ act as agents of the local authority when instructed by a council to recover debts. Paragraph 45 of the Regulations says that a notice must be served on the debtor at least 14 days before a bailiff is instructed.
9. The Regulations set out three stages of enforcement fees as follows: £75 for the compliance stage; £235 for the enforcement stage and £110 for the sale or disposal stage.

What happened in this case

10. In June 2016 the Council obtained a liability order that allowed them to pursue Mr C for an outstanding debt of £213.69. The Council passed the debt to an enforcement agent for recovery in July 2017.
11. On 3 August 2017 the bailiffs added a compliance fee of £75:00 to the debt and therefore the balance owed by Mr C was £288.69. On 25 August 2017 bailiffs visited Mr C’s property but were refused access. They left the recovery paperwork with his wife which included information about enforcement fees. Following the visit, the bailiffs added enforcement costs of £235.00. This meant the balance owed by Mr C was £523.69.
12. In October 2017 the Council informed the bailiffs that the original debt of £213.69 should be reduced by £12.60. This left an outstanding debt of £201.09 Council tax and £310.00 in enforcement fees. The balance owed by Mr C was £511.09
13. On 1 November 2017 Mr C made a payment of £201.09 directly to the Council. The Council forwarded this payment to the bailiffs to allocate towards the amount of £511.09 owed. The bailiffs split the payment was split as follows:

• £58.14 towards the £201.09 owed to the Council leaving an outstanding balance of £142.95;
• £142.95 towards the £310.00 owed in enforcement fees leaving an outstanding balance of £167.05.

This left an outstanding debt of £310.00.

14. On 24 November 2017 Mr C contacted the Council by telephone. He was told that the amount outstanding on the account was £310.00. Mr C refused to pay and said he would take legal action against the Council.
15. On the 7 February 2018 Mr C visited the Council and was told by Officer X that the total amount he owed was £142.95. Mr C paid £142.95 to clear outstanding debt. However, Officer X failed to inform him of the enforcement fees.
16. The Council forwarded the payment to the bailiffs on 9 February 2018. The bailiffs split the payment as follows:

• £65.92 towards the £142.95 owed to the Council leaving an outstanding balance of £77.03
• £77.03 towards £167.05 owed in enforcement fees leaving an outstanding balance of £90.02.

This left an outstanding debt of £167.05.

17. On the same day Officer X tried to contact Mr C by telephone to explain that she had given him an incorrect figure of £142.95. She was not able to speak to Mr C and left him a message to call her back as soon as possible.
18. On 16 February 2018 the bailiffs visited Mr C’s property but were refused access. They left documents with Mr C informing him of the outstanding debt of £167.05. On the same day, Mr C complained to the Council. He said he had paid the outstanding debt in full and had a receipt from the Council showing a nil balance.
19. The Council responded to Mr C’s complaint on 2 March 2018. It apologised for misadvising him about the amount that he needed to pay to clear the debt. It said that it had provided feedback to Officer X and had highlighted the need for the Council to signpost debtors to communicate directly with the bailiffs to make payments. The Council clarified that £167.05 was still payable to the bailiffs comprising of £77.03 for outstanding council tax and £90.02 for enforcement fees.
20. Mr C remained unsatisfied with the Council’s stage one response to his complaint. On 16 March 2018 he requested an independent review of his complaint.
21. On 6 April 2018 the bailiffs returned the liability order back to the Council on the basis that it was unable to gain legal access to Mr C’s property
22. The Council responded to the complaint on the 10 April 2018. The letter said:

• The original debt was created correctly, and Mr C had been notified at all stages of enforcement;
• Mr C had made no payments towards the debt until after the involvement of enforcement agents;
• There had been several visits made by the enforcement agents to his property and Mr C was aware of the action being taken and that fees were being added to the account;
• Officer X had already been spoken to following the stage 1 complaint;
• The outstanding balance of £167.05 remained payable.

23. On the 30 July 2018 the Council passed the council tax debt of £77.03 to a second enforcement agent. On 10 August 2018 the bailiffs wrote to Mr C and informed him of the debt, how to make payment and enclosed a list of enforcement fees. The letter stated that payment should be made within 14 days to avoid further action and costs.
24. On 3 September 2018 Mr C sent an email to the Officer Y. He said he was “receiving letters from the bailiffs again but had not received the date for an independent review of his complaint.
25. On 22 January 2019 Mr C sent an email to Officer Z. He said that he had requested an independent review of his complaint but had heard nothing further. He said the Council had handed the case to bailiffs. The Council responded to the email on 14 February 2019 and attached a copy of the original stage two response letter.
26. Mr C complained to the Ombudsman. He said that the Council was pursuing him for council tax which he did not owe. He says because of this he has accrued further enforcement fees of £310.00.

Analysis

27. Mr C accepts that he owed the Council £201.09. The Council referred the debt to an enforcement agent 12 months after the liability order was issued, as no payment had been received. This resulted in bailiffs fees which Mr C was told about.
28. The bailiffs issued a compliance letter to Mr C in August 2017. This added £75 fee to Mr C’s debt. Two weeks later they visited Mr C at his home address but were refused access. This added a further £235 fee to Mr C’s debt. This meant that in total, £310 enforcement fees was added to the original debt. This could have been avoided if Mr C had paid the original debt on time.
29. On 7 February 2018 Mr C made a payment of £142.95 and was told by the Council that his account had been settled in full. This was fault. Whilst I acknowledge that Mr C was misadvised when he made the payment, he had previously spoken to the Council and had received communication from the bailiffs confirming that the remaining debt was £310.00. The evidence suggests that Mr C was aware of the amount of outstanding debt and therefore was not caused any injustice.
30. In its stage one response the Council told Mr C that £167.05 was still payable to the bailiffs comprising of £77.03 for outstanding council tax and £90.02 for enforcement fees. It confirmed this again in its stage two response letter date 10 April 2018.
31. On the 30 July 2018 the Council passed the outstanding council tax debt of £77.03 to a second enforcement agent. The Council’s policy says that it will issue a summons for debt over £20. The Council had already obtained a liability order to purse Mr C for this debt. I find no fault here.
32. In August 2018 Mr C incurred further enforcement fees of £75 and £235. These could have been avoided if Mr C had paid the debt on time. Mr C informed the Council that he had not received a response to his stage two complaint letter on 3 September 2018. This was one month after he received the compliance letter from the second bailiffs. There is no fault here by the Council. It has provided evidence that it sent the complaint response letter to Mr C. I appreciate that Mr C said he never received it, however he did not contact the Council until one month after the commencement of further enforcement action.
33. The Council failed to respond to Mr C’s email in September 2019. This meant Mr C had to contact the Council again on 22 January 2019. However, this did not cause Mr C significant injustice as he was already aware of the outstanding debt and the Council had taken appropriate steps to try and recover it. The costs incurred by Mr C are a result of his failure to pay in accordance with the agreed timeframe. This is not the Council’s fault.

Back to top

Final decision

34. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decsion to pursue Mr C for council tax debt. There was evidence of some fault in the Council’s communication with Mr C about the debt, but this did not cause him any injustice.
35. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman