Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council dealt with her council tax account because it failed to apply a single person’s discount and other errors which caused her to pay too much. The Ombudsman has not found fault with the Council’s actions because Miss X did not pay her bill on time, or keep the Council informed about her whereabouts. The Council was entitled to take the action it did to enforce the unpaid account.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council failed to properly assess her liability for council tax leading to additional court and bailiff’s costs. She says having to try and resolve this matter has caused both stress and inconvenience.

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 discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered the written information she provided. I made written enquiries of the Council. I took account of all the information before reaching a draft decision on the complaint was sent to both parties to comment upon. No comments were received.

Back to top

What I found

5. Council tax is a tax made on domestic properties. It is the responsibility of council tax payers to pay their council tax. Where a sum of council tax is unpaid the Council may seek an order from the Magistrates’ Court known as a liability order. This confirms the amount owed and who is liable to pay it. When a liability order has been made, the Council has a number of options available to pursue the debt. One option is to instruct bailiffs. (Regulation 45 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992)
6. Bailiffs can charge fees for council tax debt recovery. The fees applicable in relation to this complaint are set out in Regulations. The fees are £75 at the compliance stage and £235 at the enforcement stage.

What happened

7. Miss X bought a property in the Council’s area, Property A. Her estate agent told the Council she would be living there from 31 May 2017. The Council issued a council tax bill on 2 October 2017. A reminder was sent the following month. No payment was made.
8. Miss X says she had asked the Council to apply a single person’s discount and she was waiting an adjusted bill. The Council disputes this and has no records of her contacting the Council at this time.
9. Shortly after moving into the property, Miss X’s mother became seriously ill and Miss X went to care for her. A friend looked after Property A in her absence. Miss X sold Property A in December 2017. The new occupiers notified the Council of this change. The Council did not have a forwarding address for Miss X.
10. As no council tax had been paid during Miss X’s occupancy, the Council obtained a liability order from the court. A number of letters were sent to Miss X at Property A about this. Miss X says she did not receive these latters because she was no longer living there. In May 2018, bailiffs were instructed by the Council to enforce the debt. By this time, Miss X had gone travelling abroad so the bailiffs were unable to trace her.
11. Miss X contacted the Council in June 2018. She had returned to the UK and was informed by a friend who was looking after her property that a bailiff’s letter had arrived regarding unpaid council tax. She emailed the Council to question whether a single person’s discount had been applied to her account as the amount the Council said she owed seemed too high.
12. In August 2018, the Council replied by email. Miss X was advised that the council tax was outstanding and that if she wanted to claim a single person’s discount that a form had to be completed. The form was attached to the email sent to Miss X.
13. The Council did not receive a reply.
14. The bailiffs, having been unable to trace Miss X, returned the case to the Council in November 2018.
15. In December 2018, the Council wrote to Miss X at Property A. No response was received so the Council reinstructed bailiffs the following month.
16. In February 2019, having been contacted by the bailiffs, Miss X paid what she believed to be the full amount owed to avoid any further action being taken against her. Miss X was unaware that the amount she had paid did not include the bailiff’s costs as this had not shown up on the Council’s online payment system.
17. Despite making full payment of the outstanding council tax, the bailiffs hand delivered a further letter to Miss X’s friend at another address requesting an additional £310. This was due to extra charges being added to the account to cover the bailiff’s costs that Miss X says she had not been aware of.
18. Miss X contacted the Council to question both these additional charges and the amount she had paid to the Council. She still thought it was too high and asked again about her eligibility for the single person’s discount. She was again sent the single person’s discount form to complete which Miss X did straight away.
19. The discount was applied to the account in March 2019 and the Council refunded the overpayment.
20. There was a discrepancy in the Council’s figures which was identified by Miss X. The Council accepted it had made a mistake and adjusted the bill accordingly.
21. In April 2017, Miss X complained to the Council about the following matters:

• Failure by the Council to update its contact details, despite her providing information in June 2018 that she did not have a forwarding address but should be contacted by email.
• The bailiff turned up at her friend’s address causing her friend to be upset.
• She had contacted the Council in June 2018 to ask for the bill to be reduced to reflect her single person’s status but did not receive a reply.
• The Council used inaccurate figures in its revised calculations (the band was £1458 not £1561).
• The Council added additional costs which were not included when she made her online payment in February 2019.

22. The Council’s response made the following points:

• The first contact from Miss X was the email she sent in June 2018. She was sent the form by email but no response was received so the bailiff was reinstructed.
• Miss X did not provide an alternative address in June 2018, so all court papers were sent to her former address.
• Bailiff’s costs were added separately and so to resolve the matter Miss X should pay the bailiff directly.

23. Her complaint was not upheld and the Council told Miss X she should contact the bailiff to settle the additional costs.
24. Miss X contacted the bailiffs as she was unhappy about their conduct in the matter. The response explained their fees of £310 were properly incurred in line with the relevant legislation and still needed to be paid by Miss X.
25. Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman as she was appalled by the Council’s handling of the matter which had caused her undue stress and worry.

Analysis

26. The law says the Council must recover council tax debts. This recovery action can include using bailiffs. When the Council does not know where a person has moved it must take recovery action against the person at their last known address. The Council’s council tax information showed Miss X’s last known address as Property A.
27. While Miss X’s estate agents correctly informed the Council that she was due to move into the property in May 2017, there is no evidence that Miss X told the Council she was moving out in December 2017. Nor is there any evidence that Miss X contacted the Council between May 2017 and December 2017 to query the amount she was being asked to pay. While Miss X says she contacted the Council, I am unable to make a finding in her favour without evidence to support her version of events.
28. The first evidence of her making contact with the Council was in June 2018. By this time court and bailiff’s costs had increased the amount owed. I have seen the email sent by the Council in August 2018 to her email address about the single person’s discount. The Council says it did not receive a reply and I have not been shown any proof by Miss X that she did reply. On balance, I have decided she did not respond.
29. Miss X says the Council had her email address at this point and was aware that she was no longer living at her former address. She says the Council should have updated its records. In response, the Council says she failed to provide an alternative address so her previous address remained on their records.
30. For a document to be effective it must be served on a person. The law says a document may be served on a person by delivering it to them, leaving it at their proper address or sending it by post to their proper address. Proper address is taken to be the last known address. (Local Government Act 1972 s233, A&E Regulations s35(2)). While I appreciate Miss X may not have realised the importance of providing an alternative address, she was still aware that council tax had not been paid and the onus was on her to settle any outstanding bills.
31. The Council had already tried to contact her via her email in August 2018, so I consider the Council was not at fault for continuing to contact her at her former address. In any event, when the bailiff was reinstructed by the Council in January 2019 it carried out its usual searches and these led to her being contacted at her friend’s address.
32. While again I appreciate, Miss X feeling aggrieved by this, particularly as her friend became involved, had she either paid the bill sooner or at least given the Council a forwarding address, such events could have been avoided.
33. For a debtor, the experience of a visit by a bailiff is unlikely to be pleasant. Bailiffs are trying to collect money and will remove goods if they do not receive payment and charge legitimate costs on top of the debt.
34. For theses reason, I do not find the Council to be at fault when it instructed bailiffs and used the only address they had for Miss X.
35. Miss X also complains about the additional court and bailiff’s costs not being shown on the online system when she paid the council tax in February 2019. She later found out she owed a further £310.
36. The fees added to the debt are those that the Regulations allow. So there is no evidence of fault with those fees.
37. Again, while I have some sympathy for Miss X’s position, at the time she made the payment she knew what her council tax liability was up to the date she moved out. However, she was also aware that the matter had been to court and she had been visited by bailiffs. The letters from the bailiff explained its charges and instructed her to make payment directly to the bailiff rather than the Council. I therefore find that it was reasonable for Miss X to have known that the amount she paid was not the total amount owed and she was correctly informed to make payment direct to the bailiff.
38. In any event, Miss X became aware very soon after that she owed more than she had paid, and the Council explained the additional amounts. Again, for this reason, I do not find fault with the Council’s actions.
39. The Council did miscalculate her council tax liability which was spotted by Miss X. While this is unfortunate, the Council rectified the error straight away and has apologised. For this reason, it is not necessary for me to make a finding about this.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have not found the Council to be at fault in the way it dealt with Miss X’s council tax account.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman