Summary: The Council failed to end council tax liability when a couple told it they had moved. The couple were in credit with the council tax but the Council, without their knowledge, obtained two liability orders against them. The Council then engaged enforcement agents who sent notices to their current home. This caused distress to them and adversely effected the health condition of one of them. The Council will apologise and pay a financial remedy for the time, trouble and distress it caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Ms Y complain the Council wrongly took enforcement action against them causing them distress and worry and worsening Ms Y’s health. They say the Council then failed to offer them a remedy for their distress. They also say the Chief Executive refused to meet them.

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 and documents provided by Mr X and Ms Y and discussed the complaint with them. I considered the Council’s response to Mr X and Ms Y.
5. I wrote to Mr X and Ms Y and the Council with my draft decision and gave them an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

6. On 2 October 2017 Mr X and Ms Y moved from house 1 to house 2 in Knowsley. They told the Council Tax Department the same day. The Council did not end their council tax liability for house 1. The Council says it had already made Mr X and Ms Y liable for house 2 because of information from the property company. Mr X and Ms Y were in credit with council tax payments for house 1.
7. Mr X and Ms Y arranged for a neighbour of house 1 to send their post.
8. On 10 October the Council sent Mr X and Ms Y a reminder notice for council tax for house 1. The Council sent it to house 1.
9. On 24 October Mr X and Ms Y went to the Council’s offices to ask when they would get a council tax bill for house 2. House 2 is a new build and the Valuation Office had not yet set the council tax band for it. Mr X and Ms Y began to pay towards the council tax for house 2 before they got the bill. The Council sent them a council tax bill for house 2 on 9 November 2017.
10. On 31 October the Council sent a summons to Mr X and Ms Y at house 1 for unpaid council tax for that address. The neighbour sent this to Mr X and Ms Y and on 6 November they went to the Council’s offices. The Council receipt says it had not yet processed the change of address and would withdraw the summons. The Council did not end Mr X and Ms Y’s liability at house 1.
11. On 14 November 2017 the Council sent another reminder for unpaid council tax for house 1. Mr X and Mr Y went to the Council’s offices on 20 November. The Council told them it would sort the problem out.
12. In November 2017 the neighbour stopped sending the mail. After 14 November Royal Mail returned all the notices the Council sent to Mr X and Ms Y at house 1 to the Council’s offices. Therefore, Mr X and Ms Y were not aware the Council still did not end their liability for house 1. Instead it started the enforcement process again.
13. On 13 February 2018 the Council sent a reminder to Mr X and Ms Y for council tax at house 1. This still held them responsible for council tax for house 1 until 31 March 2018. On 6 March the Council sent a summons to house 1. On 23 March the Council got a liability order against Mr X and Ms Y in the Magistrates Court, adding £60 to the council tax bill.
14. In March 2018 the Council sent a council tax bill for house 2 for April 2018 to March 2019 to Mr X and Ms Y, which they started to pay. It also sent them a bill for house 1 for 2018/2019 to house 1.
15. On 1 June 2018 the Council got a liability order against Mr X and Ms Y for non-payment of the 2018/2019 council tax for house 1.
16. In July 2018 the Council sent both liability orders to enforcement agents. The enforcement agents traced Mr X and Ms Y at their current address. On 18 July 2018 the agents sent two enforcement notices to Mr X and Ms Y at house 2. The two notices added £150 to the alleged debt.
17. The Council says at the time its enforcement agents did not share possible new addresses with the Council until they had verified the new address. The Council says it will change this because of what happened to Mr X and Ms Y.
18. The notices told Mr X and Ms Y about the two liability orders the Council had against them for house 1. The notices said Mr X and Ms Y owed £1,828.99 for house 1 and if they did not pay an agent would visit them and take their goods.
19. The Council says it realised its error on 19 July when an officer noticed that items it has posted to Mr X and Ms Y since November 2017 were returned unopened. It says the officer checked and saw the Council had not processed the change of address. It says it immediately withdrew the account from the enforcement agents. Nobody contacted Mr X or Ms Y to tell them this. The Council says it will amend its process.
20. On 20 July the Council sent Mr X and Ms Y new council tax bills for house 1 and house 2. The Council now ended Mr X and Ms Y’s liability for house 1 on 1 October 2017. There was a credit of £101.21 on the account for house 1 which the Council transferred to Mr X and Ms Y’s account for house 2. Ms X and Ms Y did not receive the new bills until 23 July.
21. Mr X and Ms Y say they received the enforcement notices on Saturday 21 July so could not contact the Council until Monday. Mr X and Ms Y contacted the enforcement agents who said they were not dealing with the case.
22. This did not ease Mr X and Ms Y’s concerns as they now knew the Council had court orders against them for money they did not owe. They say they were terrified. Mr X feared he would lose his car and his job. Ms Y suffers from convulsions and says she had more than 20 seizures over the weekend. She says she became anxious and restless. She saw her doctor on the Monday and says she needed extra medication and antidepressants.
23. On 30 July Mr X and Mr Y complained to the Council. They asked for an apology; compensation for the impact on their health because of the Council’s failures; and, a face-to-face meeting with the Chief Executive. They included copies of relevant documents including receipts, liability orders and enforcement notices.
24. The Local Government Act 2000 at paragraph 92 says where a council has acted with fault causing injustice to someone, it can make a payment to that person.
25. The Chief Executive replied to Mr X and Ms Y’s complaint on 17 August. The Chief Executive accepted the Council had made mistakes and given poor customer service. The Chief Executive apologised for this. His letter went on to say:

“I have noted your comments in relation to compensation. Claims for compensation are considered by the Council’s Insurance service. Should you wish to provide full details of your loss with supporting evidence, I will ensure that your claim is given due consideration.”

26. The Chief Executive did not respond to the request for a meeting.
27. Mr X and Ms Y again asked the Chief Executive to meet them and for the documents the Council said had been returned to it unopened.
28. On 8 September Mr X and Ms Y contacted a Councillor to ask him to intervene and arrange a meeting with the Chief Executive. Ms Y says she spoke to the Chief Executive on the telephone. The Chief Executive says Ms Y is mistaken. He says a meeting with him would be of little value as he would not know all the details. Instead he offered contact details for senior officers in the Revenues Department. A senior officer in the Revenues Department did telephone Mr X and Ms Y and said it was her responsibility to address any errors made by her department.
29. The Council returned the documents provided by Mr X and Ms Y with their complaint but did not address the request for compensation.

Analysis

30. The Council is at fault for failing to end Mr X and Ms Y’s council tax liability for house 1 in October 2017. Because it did not do this it obtained liability orders which it sent to agents for enforcement when it should not have. The Council has accepted it is a fault.
31. The Council caused injustice to Mr X and Ms Y. They made trips to the office in October and November and the Council still failed to end their liability. Mr X and Ms Y then had the threat of enforcement agents coming to their home and taking their belongings. The Council knew it had sent the accounts to enforcement agents before it discovered its error. It should have immediately contacted Mr X and Ms Y to tell them what happened and what it would do to put this right. It did not do this. Mr X and Ms Y then has a weekend of fear. I accept this fear affected Ms Y’s medical condition and increased her convulsions.
32. The Council has not offered a proper remedy for the injustice it caused. Saying Mr X and Ms Y must make a claim to the Council’s insurers is not appropriate. The Council can make a financial remedy when it is at fault. Mr X and Mrs Y went to time and trouble providing the evidence to the Council with their complaint. The Council returned this to them without even putting it to the insurers.
33. The Council says it has now made senior officers aware of the provision in the Local Government Act 2000 for providing a remedy.
34. I cannot say the Chief Executive should have agreed to meet Mr X and Ms Y. He has given reasons for not agreeing to a meeting. However, in the circumstances a joint meeting with the Chief Executive and senior officers might have helped Mr X and Ms Y feel the Council had learned something from their experience.
35. I do not know if Ms Y spoke to the Chief Executive by telephone. I have no reason to continue the investigation to try to establish if this happenend. This is because it makes no difference to my findings.
36. 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 Y’s health suffered. I consider this case merits double our usual highest amount.
37. 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 Mr X and Ms Y merits the high end of the range.

Agreed action

38. To put matters right for Mr X and Ms Y, the Council has agreed that within a month of my final decision it will:-

• Apologise to Mr X and Ms Y; and
• Pay them £900 for the distress, time and trouble the Council’s actions caused them.

Back to top

Final decision

39. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice to Mr X and Ms Y. It 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