Summary: Mr A complains the Council unfairly pursued recovery of council tax arrears using enforcement agents. He says this caused severe anxiety. The Ombudsman’s finds that there is no evidence of fault by the Council or its enforcement agent.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr A, complains the Council and its enforcement agent failed to take account of his financial circumstances when pursuing recovery of a council tax arrears. He says this caused distress and anxiety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 discussed the complaint with the complainant and 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 the complainant’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr A and his partner had council tax arrears from 2014. The Council had obtained two liability orders in court. The Council had referred the account to enforcement agents to collect. Mr A also had a housing benefit overpayment of £2700.
6. Mr A had made arrangements with the enforcement agent to pay the council tax liability orders, but he had not kept to the arrangements he made. By 2018 he owed over £1000 in council tax.
7. In late 2018 Mr A contacted the enforcement agent and advised his circumstances had changed as he had lost his job. He said he could not pay the arrangement of £100 a month but was about to meet with an advice agency to complete a new statement of income and expenditure to help work out what he could pay. In the meantime, he said he would pay £20 per month.
8. The enforcement agent replied that it could not accept £20 per month and it would not hold recovery action. It sent him an income and expenditure form to complete. On 11 December 2018 the agent wrote to Mr A confirming he had broken his arrangement to pay £100 per month. It said it would now consider visiting his home to remove goods in order to repay the outstanding debt.
9. Mr A emailed the agent that he was surprised it threatened further action because he had advised he had lost his job and was visiting an advice agency. He said he had now sent a completed financial statement to the Council. He said he could afford no more than £4 per month, and asked it to suspend action on his account.
10. The enforcement agent replied that it had considered his financial statement but would not accept his offer of £4 per month due to the amount of time it would take for the debt to be cleared It said the minimum amount it would accept would be £420 per month. It explained that council tax was a priority debt and it thought he could revise some areas of his expenditure to meet the payments it required.
11. Mr A replied the advice agency told him to continue paying £4 per month and so this is what he would do. The enforcement agent repeated it could not accept the offer of £4 and therefore it would continue recovery action.
12. In February the enforcement agent sent a text message to Mr A saying that it would visit his property to collect the outstanding £2700 housing benefit overpayment. It said if he did not pay it could seek a County Court Judgement against him. Mr A emailed the agent that he had offered £4 per month as this was all he could afford. He said the text message had caused him chest pains and he feared he would have a heart attack. He said he had contacted the Council regarding this. The agent replied that Mr A needed to contact the enforcement agent dealing with his account. It is not clear that Mr A contacted the agent.
13. In March 2019 the enforcement agent sent Mr A two final notices regarding the council tax debts. It said that if Mr A did not pay within 7 days the Council could consider other recovery action such as committal to prison, a charging order on his property or bankruptcy action. Mr A contacted the Council and asked it to take the debt back because he felt the enforcement agent was harassing him despite his payments of £4 per month. He said the agent was unreasonable because based on his financial statement, £4 per month was all he could afford.
14. The Council replied that it understood Mr A had offered a reduced payment arrangement of £4 per month which the agent had not accepted. But it considered that the agent was managing the case appropriately. It did not agree it should take the debt back.
15. In May, Mr A’s partner told the enforcement agent that Mr A had applied for a debt relief order (DRO). The agent asked for evidence of this as it needed to see the debts it covered. It also said that it would accept a payment arrangement of £60 per month from Mr A’s partner who was jointly liable and not subject to the DRO.
16. In its response to my enquiries the Council sent copies of the income and expenditure forms Mr A submitted to the agent. The agent has explained that there were several items of Mr A’s expenditure that it considered excessive. It says it has liaised with a national debt charity to ensure its parameters regarding acceptable expenditure are similar. It says it treats each case on its own merits and uses its discretion when considering reasonable repayments. I have considered the agent’s actions and the information it took into account. While the agent could have explained more clearly why it found items of expenditure excessive, I have not found fault in its actions. It advised Mr A to contact the agent dealing with his account but it does not appear that he did so. The agent moved the account forward for recovery because Mr A had not contacted it as advised or made an acceptable arrangement. The agent is not required to accept any offer that it receives, if it considers it is not reasonable
17. Mr A complains the Council and its agent failed to consider his vulnerability as a person with health problems. The agent has confirmed that its Welfare Team has overseen Mr A’s case since 2017. The enforcement agent has provided a copy of its safeguarding and vulnerability policy. This explains the agent’s criteria and actions in relation to vulnerable or potentially vulnerable people. The policy refers to its Third Sector Protocol. This is an agreement to allow a breathing space of up to 42 days following a request from agencies such as the citizens advice bureau, while the debtor is seeking advice.
18. I have considered how the agent has managed the matter following receipt of Mr A’s interim offer to pay £20 per month. It did not halt recovery while Mr A sought advice from the advice agency. The Third Sector Protocol states the agent will consider placing a case on hold if requested by the advice agency. However, in this case the advice agency did not request this. I have not found fault here.
19. I consider the agent promptly advised that the amounts offered by Mr A were not acceptable. It sent its own income and expenditure form before it received the one Mr A completed with the advice agency. When it received the income and expenditure statement Mr A completed with the advice agency it replied that the amount offered was unacceptable and that he could revise some expenditure in order to meet the council tax payments. I have not found fault in how the agent considered this as it appears in accordance with its policy and procedure.
20. The Council advised me it does not have a policy regarding how it deals with vulnerable people when recovering council tax. The Council says it recognises that it needs to have a vulnerability policy and it is in the process of creating a policy. I welcome this action.
21. The Council says when a customer identifies themselves as vulnerable, it can refer the case to its Welfare Visiting Team. Information regarding the team is given on council tax bills. However, the Council did not refer this to its team because Mr A did not request it and he had already sought advice from an advice agency. The Council also says it did not suggest Mr A applied for a Council Tax Discretionary Reduction. This discretionary scheme can allow the Council to reduce the council tax due. However, the Council says it did not appear Mr A would be eligible based on the information it had. I have not found fault here.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have not found fault by the Council or its agent. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman