Summary: Mr T complains the Council wrongly took recovery action against him due to an error regarding a discount. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr T, complains the Council failed to apply a single person discount and then pursued recovery of council tax. This led to a visit by enforcement agents, causing him distress and financial hardship.

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 have considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. I have also considered Mr T’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr T had paid his council tax for 2017/18 in full by November 2017. The Council had applied a single person discount (SPD) to his council tax account. However, in December 2017 the Council sent Mr T an SPD review form. It asked him to return this by a deadline, but he did not return it. The Council sent a reminder regarding the SPD review in January 2018. The Council says that in February 2018, when Mr T did not respond, it removed the SPD from April 2017 and sent Mr T a bill for £318.
6. Mr T did not pay the new council tax bill, and after sending a reminder the Council sent a summons, adding costs of £72 to the account. The Council heard nothing from Mr T, so it obtained a liability order in court. The Council wrote to Mr T about making an arrangement, but had no response. It passed the account to its enforcement agent who added fees of £75 and wrote to Mr T asking him to pay or make an arrangement.
7. The Council had sent Mr T a bill for the new council tax year in March 2018. The Council had not applied an SPD to this year too because Mr T had not responded to its review. When Mr T did not pay the bill for 2018/19 the Council went through the reminder and summons process before it obtained a liability order for £1415. The Council also wrote advising Mr T to make an arrangement. It then sent this account to its enforcement agent, who added a further compliance fee of £75. The agent sent two notices to Mr T regarding each account, advising him to pay or make an arrangement. Mr T did not respond.
8. The enforcement agent visited Mr T’s home in July 2018 regarding the first liability order. Mr T paid the agent £725 for the 2017/18 council tax year. This included the agent’s fees of £310.
9. Mr T complained to the Council the same day. He said the Council had failed to award the SPD. He said he had challenged this and assumed the Council would put it right. However, an enforcement agent had visited, demanding over £800. He said when he called the Council, it admitted an error. But it would take 48 hours to correct it. In the meantime, the enforcement agent gave him only 12 hours, having damaged his door by sticking a notice on it. Therefore, Mr T said he had to pay the agent. He found this very distressing. Mr T asked the Council to remove the fees and court action because he said his credit rating would be affected.
10. The Council replied at stage one of its procedure on 3 August 2018. It did not uphold his complaint. It explained Mr T had not responded to its SPD review form or reminder. It had removed the SPD in February 2018 and sent him a bill. When he had not paid, it had obtained a liability order after following the billing process. It had also obtained a liability order for the 2018/19 council tax year. The Council instructed its enforcement agent who visited on 12 July 2018. The Council said it had received no contact from Mr T until the agent’s visit. Mr T had followed this up with a call to the Council on 17 July. He then stated that he lived alone, and he was waiting for the bill to be corrected before he paid it. The Council said that it had not stated at any point that the removal of the SPD was an error. It stated that in future it would allow council tax payers to respond to the discount review form online. However, it would still send review forms through the post to confirm that the council tax payer still lived at the address. The Council explained that council tax payment must not be withheld while waiting for an amendment. The Council explained that its agent had lightly taped a notice in a sealed envelope to his door as it could not be posted through a letterbox. The agent did not recollect visiting at a time other than that stated in his letters. While it did not agree the Council was at fault, it said as a gesture of goodwill, it would recall the account from its enforcement agent and withdraw the recovery action. It said the agent had received £650 from Mr T, which reduced the outstanding balance to £338. The agent would refund its £75 fee to Mr T.
11. The Council sent a new bill to Mr T for the remaining £338 payable in instalments of £48 for seven months.
12. Mr T complained to the Ombudsman in March 2019, because he said the Council had failed to apply SPD leading to enforcement agent action which caused him distress and hardship. He asked for compensation due to the distress the Council caused him.
13. The Council responded to Mr T at stage two of its procedure. It repeated that the reason the SPD was removed was because Mr T had not responded to its review form. It apologised for any distress that may have been caused by its action. However, it said it had followed the correct procedures and therefore did not agree it should offer him financial compensation.

Analysis

14. The Council has provided evidence that it has taken the correct recovery action regarding Mr T’s council tax account. As he did not respond to a council tax SPD review form the Council removed the SPD. I note Mr T says that he returned the forms, but there is insufficient evidence of this. He does not appear to have responded to the bills and notices the Council and the enforcement agent sent. He did not make payments in accordance with the bills. The only record the Council has of his contact is when the enforcement agent visited. By this time, considerable costs and fees had been added. Therefore, I have not found that there is fault by the Council in taking the action that it did.
15. While I have not found evidence of fault by the Council, it has removed all its costs and the enforcement agent’s fees. The Council was not required to do this, but I welcome this action. I have not seen evidence that Mr T is out of pocket as a result of this. The Council has removed all the summons and liability order costs and the agent’s fees. The money that Mr T paid to the agent was used to reduce the outstanding council tax for 2018/19. The agent refunded £75 to Mr D. So, this has put him back to position he was in. I do not consider any further action by the Council is necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have not found fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman