Summary: Mr X complains the Council should not charge him summons costs for council tax arrears while his property was empty. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council unfairly pursued council tax recovery when he had provided information that the property was empty and that his parents were authorised to deal with enquiries on his behalf. As a result, he says the Council added summons costs and threatened enforcement agent action.

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 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 Mr X’s representative’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. In 2018 Mr X was living in a property and was paying the council tax because he was liable. However, he emailed the Council in October to state that he would be moving out with the aim of selling the property, leaving the property empty. He said he would confirm the date when he knew. He said his ex partner was jointly responsible for council tax payments, because although she was not living there, she was jointly responsible for the mortgage. He said the Council could contact his solicitor for her contact address and gave her email address. He asked for a discount as the property would be empty. He said he was not working so could not afford to carry on making payments for the property. Mr X’s email was sent from his father’s email address. He did not give details of his forwarding address.
6. The Council did not respond to this email. In November 2018 Mr X completed an online enquiry form giving the date the property became empty. He asked why the Council had not applied a single person discount. He asked for a response by post but did not give a forwarding address.
7. Mr X complained he had no response in late November 2018. He said the Council had partly adjusted his account but did not respond regarding the single person discount. He said he was living at his parents’ address and had sent his email from their computer. The email Mr X sent gave his father’s Mr A’s name in the “from” field”.
8. The Council emailed Mr X 3 days later and asked for further information about the dates he was the sole occupant. It also asked for evidence that Mr X’s ex partner was jointly liable for the mortgage, so that it could make her liable as requested for the period the property was empty. The Council asked for the ex partner’s address so that it could contact her.
9. Mr X gave an email address and telephone number for his ex partner but no address as he did not have it. The Council replied addressing the email to Mr A, using his first name, apparently in error. However, the content of the email was addressed to Mr X and asked about when he had become the sole occupant.
10. Mr X replied regarding his occupation of the property and sent evidence that his ex partner was responsible for the mortgage. The Council added a single person discount to Mr X’s sole account and set up a new joint account with his ex partner from the date the property became empty. The Council applied an empty property discount for one month. Following this the Council charged the full council tax.
11. The Council emailed Mr X, confirming it would refund a credit from his sole account. It said that the amount due for the joint account was £471 payable in 3 instalments from January 2019. It stated the bills would be sent to the property.
12. Mr X asked if the Council could apply a single person discount or a longer empty property discount. The Council replied again addressing the email to Mr A in error, that it had applied the maximum discount he could have, and that he could only claim a single person discount if he was living in the property.
13. Mr X paid the first instalment for the joint account in January 2019, after the Council sent a reminder. In late January Mr A contacted the Council by email using the same email account Mr X had used. He said that his son’s property was empty and the Council’s “reminders (once the Post Office’s redirection ends) will be sent to an insecure address which has open access” to estate agents and others. He said his son had no income and the Council should contact his son’s ex partner. He gave an email address for her and an employer’s address where he thought she may work.
14. The Council replied that it had no signed authority to discuss Mr X’s account. It said that if either liable party gave authority it could respond to Mr A’s enquiries. Mr A replied that he was supplying contact information only. He said his son’s ex partner had a right to be informed about the charges.
15. The Council said it could not respond without Mr X’s written permission, which could be by email. It explained it must send letters to the property unless the liable person advised it of a forwarding address. It said it was the account holder’s responsibility to ensure post at an empty property was collected. Mr A replied the Council should email Mr X’s partner as she had no access to the property.
16. Mr X paid the second instalment in February 2019 after the Council sent a reminder. In March, the Council sent a new bill for the 2019/20 council tax year. It confirmed that £316 was outstanding for the previous year. This did not take account of the payment that Mr X had recently paid.
17. Mr X did not pay the final instalment for 2018/19, due in March. The Council sent a final notice addressed to Mr X and his ex partner at the property. When Mr X made no contact or payment the Council sent a summons in April 2019 adding costs of £57.50. The Council obtained a liability in court in April adding a further £20 in costs. The total amount outstanding was £235.50 for 2018/19. The Council sent a letter to Mr X and his ex partner at the property, confirming the liability order and explaining it could take recovery action such as passing the account to its enforcement agent.
18. In May Mr X’s mother called the Council, having apparently received its notice about the liability order. The officer advised Mrs A that it could not disclose information about the account without Mr X’s permission. The officer noted that Mrs A was dissatisfied that the Council was charging for an empty property.
19. The next day Mr X emailed the Council giving his permission for his parents to enquire about his council tax account. He said “you were supplied with my parents’ email contact (authorised by me) with regard to any necessary follow up”. He attached a copy of his first email sent in October. This was from his parents’ email address, but he did not state he authorised them to discuss his council tax.
20. Five days later the Council passed the liability order account to its enforcement agent. The agent added a compliance fee of £75 to the account and wrote to Mr X at the property address stating that he should make payment or an arrangement.
21. The Council responded to Mr A on 16 May 2019. It stated it accepted Mr X had now authorised his parents to discuss his account. It explained that Mr X had stated the property would become empty and that his ex partner was liable. It said the Council had advised it would award a 30 day discount only and that full council tax would be payable after this. It had advised it could not hold the account until the sale of the property and if not paid, costs would be charged. The Council asked Mr X if he wanted it to send bills to a different address.
22. Mr X gave his parents’ address as a forwarding address and stated that his parents did not have time to pay the bill because of the delay in his post being redirected. Mr X said the Council was aware of this, and therefore the costs were unfair. He appealed to the Council to withdraw the costs. He asked the Council to consider his circumstances and not pursue matters while he was waiting for the sale of his property. He asked if there were any more payments due.
23. The Council responded that it had withdrawn the account from its enforcement agent to allow him time to make payment and removed their fee of £75. It advised Mr X could request a further single person discount but would need to provide his ex partner’s address. Mr A replied asking what the £75 fee was as he thought his son was up to date except for the fine of £75.50 which he was appealing. He asked if the Council had removed the £75.50 charge. He asked the Council to apply a single person discount after the empty property discount ended. He said his son did not have his ex partner’s address but his solicitor did.
24. The Council replied that Mr X’s account was not up to date, as £235.50 was due for 2018/19. Council tax of £158 was due and £75.50 was for summons costs. The Council stated the costs were correct as it had sent bills before the court date, so it would not remove them. The Council explained again it could not give a single person discount as Mr X was not living in the property. The Council said it could not contact Mr X’s solicitors and it would be up to Mr X to do this.
25. Mr A complained appealing the £75.50 summons costs. He said they not received a final notice and the Council should not pursue the costs while he was appealing. He referred to the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations which state at regulation 29(2) “Where the imposition of a penalty is subject to an appeal or arbitration, no amount shall be payable in respect of the penalty while the appeal or arbitration is outstanding.”

26. In Mr A’s view his son had arranged for the Council to discuss his council tax with his parents because he had used his parents’ email address and the Council had used this contact ever since. He referred to the Council’s email of 28 November which addressed Mr A by his first name. He complained the Council had ignored the information they gave about the property being empty, wrongly sending bills there. He felt the Council had unfairly escalated recovery because they had paid £169 as soon as they received a reminder. However, the reminder had taken more than 2 weeks to reach them due to the post being redirected. He said the Council had a duty of care to his son who was struggling financially. He asked why the Council had made Mr X’s ex partner liable, and sent letters to her when she did not live at the property.
27. The Council sent copies of bills and notices it had sent Mr X, which warned it was to take court proceedings. Mr A said he was shocked about these and had not received them. However, they should have been sent via redirected post. He said he would ask the Royal Mail to investigate.
28. Mr A paid the outstanding £158 for 2018/19 but not the £77.50 summons costs. The Council advised he should pay the £77.50 outstanding in order to avoid enforcement action.
29. In its response to Mr A’s complaint the Council noted Mr X sent emails from his parents’ computer and had signed the emails in his own name. The Council said it believed there was confusion when asking for further information from Mr A, as it had not received authorisation to discuss Mr X’s council tax account. The Council had eventually received authorisation in May 2019. The Council said it did not have a forwarding address for Mr X so it continued to send bills to the property. The Council understood that Mr X had arranged for redirected post, presumably to Mr A’s address, but he had not received letters. The Council suggested Mr X contact the post office. The Council said that the final instalment of £158 for 2018/19 was received until 22 May 2019, after it had sent the summons on 5 April 2019. The Council said that bills sent to Mr X stated the outstanding amounts for 2018/19. The Council noted Mr X was between jobs but said that council tax reduction was not payable if the liable party did not occupy the property. The Council explained the council tax regulations Mr A referred to regarding penalties not being payable during an appeal referred to penalties for not providing information, not the court costs for liability orders. The Council considered it had acted correctly and therefore it would not remove the court costs. But it said it had called the account back from its agents and removed their fees of £75. The Council gave Mr X 14 days to pay the outstanding £75.50 court costs.
30. Mrs A complained further that the Council was unfairly seeking payment while he was complaining. He felt he Council had not taken account of a telephone call with Mrs A which he considered showed the Council recognised they were authorised. He said the Council asked Mrs A for evidence of the ex partner’s ownership of the property and her address. Mr A still considered that the correspondence via his email address with the Council showed the Council accepted Mr X authorised his parents. He repeated that the Council knowingly sent letter to the empty property, failing to make them aware of the arrears action.
31. The Council responded that it considered it had correctly sent a reminder and summons due to late payment. It repeated that it could not give information to Mr A until Mr X gave his authorisation. The Council said it had taken the unusual step of withdrawing the account from its agents and removing the obligation to pay the £75 compliance fee.
32. Mr A responded that he did not consider the Council had properly served the council tax notices to all the liable parties. He also asked why the Council said it had removed the £75 fee but also urged Mr X to pay the fee to prevent further action. Mr A complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

33. I do not consider there is sufficient evidence that Mr X gave his parents authority to discuss his council tax earlier than 9 May 2019. While I can see the Council did email Mr X using his parents’ email address, this was on the basis that Mr X was corresponding with it. I consider that the two emails addressed to Mr A using his first name were addressed incorrectly in error, but they asked specific questions to Mr X, and it appears the officer believed she was addressing Mr X. When Mr A contacted the Council in January and it became clear he did not have authority, the Council correctly requested this. However it did not receive it until 9 May 2019. I do not consider there is evidence that the Council accepted Mrs A had authority. The Council’s notes of its call with her in May show it advised it required Mr X’s written authority. Mr X emailed this the next day.
34. Mr X did not give a forwarding address for correspondence when he moved out of his property. When he completed an online enquiry he asked the Council to correspond by post. Council tax bills and notices must be sent by post, and are deemed served if sent to the last known address. Mr A has stated that Mr X had arranged a redirection of his post that ended in mid May 2019. So the Council’s letters should have been redirected. The Council sent the correct notices and reminders. It also advised Mr X of the instalments in an email of 30 November 2018. I have not seen evidence of fault here.
35. Mr A referred to the Council pursuing recovery despite his appeal and complaint about the summons costs. However, I do not find there is fault here. Mr A did not raise the complaint about the summons and costs until after the costs had been raised. The Council is not required to hold recovery while an appeal is ongoing. I consider the Council took appropriate action in withdrawing the account form its enforcement agent and removing the enforcement agent compliance fee of £75 as Mr A contacted it about a number of issues. But it was not at fault in confirming that the £75.50 were outstanding and due to be paid.
36. Mr A has asked why the Council made Mr X’s ex partner liable for council tax when she had not lived at the property. However, Mr X had requested that she should be made liable when he first contacted the Council. As a joint owner of the property she was made liable while the property was empty. I do not consider there was fault by the Council in sending notices to the property addressed to her as it did not have another appropriate contact address. The Council could not send her notices to her email address or her employer. The Council correctly advised Mr X that he should ask his solicitors to contact it to provide a forwarding address for her.

Back to top

Final decision

37. 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