Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his Council Tax account resulting in recovery action against him. The Council has accepted it was at fault in failing to include a rejected payment amount in a payment plan sent to Mr X. It has already apologised to Mr X, withdrawn all costs, the summons and Liability Order and removed the debt from its enforcement agents in recognition of the distress caused. This is a suitable remedy in this case so, the Ombudsman has completed his investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his Council Tax account resulting in recovery action against him. Mr X says the Council did not properly respond to his complaints about the matter increasing his time and distress in dealing with the issues.

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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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 read the papers submitted by Mr X and spoken to him about the complaint. I considered the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting documents it provided. I have explained my draft decision to Mr X and the Council and considered the comments received.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X is liable for Council Tax at his property. Mr X chose to pay his Council Tax according to a monthly amount set in a payment plan issued by the Council with the annual bill. The Council issued Mr X with a new Council Tax bill for 2018/19 in March 2018. The bill listed Mr X’s payment plan. Mr X applied to pay his Council Tax by direct debit over 10 months instead of a payment plan. The Council agreed and provided Mr X with a new payment plan beginning with a payment of £88.29 on 8 May 2018 followed by monthly payments of £86 ending in January 2019.
6. The Council could not take the first direct debit from Mr X of £88.29 and Mr X’s bank advised it had been cancelled. The Council says Mr X would have been aware the payment had been returned to his bank account and so not made. The Council cancelled the direct debit plan and issued Mr X with a new bill and payment plan on 9 May 2018. It required Mr X to pay monthly amounts of £86 until January 2019.
7. The Council says usually when a direct debit is reversed it raises an alert in a report to cancel the payment plan and create a new one manually which takes account of the reversed payment. The Council says unfortunately in Mr X’s case this did not happen and the new payment plan did not account for not receiving the direct debit of £88.29.
8. Mr X continued to pay £86 each month but was late paying for August 2018. As the payment was six days late the Council issued a reminder to Mr X for £174.29 on 7 August 2018 according to its recovery procedures. This included the August payment and the cancelled direct debit of £88.29 for May 2018. The reminder told Mr X to pay the total within seven days or he would lose his right to pay in instalments. If he did not pay the balance in full after a further seven days, the Council would issue a court summons for a Liability Order hearing at the Magistrate’s court.
9. The records do not show that Mr X disputed or queried the amount due in the reminder.
10. Mr X paid £86 on 16 August 2018 but it was less than reminder notice sought. So, the Council issued a summons to Mr X for the full balance of £518.29 including £69 associated costs. Mr X made a further payment of £86 on 24 August 2018 but the Council issued the summons before the payment cleared Mr X’s account.
11. The Council issued Mr X with a special payment arrangement requiring him to pay £83.29 by 12 September 2018 followed by monthly payments of £84 until March 2019.
12. Mr X contacted the Council’s contact centre and spoke to an adviser about the summons. The Council says Mr X told the adviser his payment plan was up-to-date, and he had paid the instalment for September 2018 in August 2018. The adviser emailed revenue services to see if it could withdraw the summons costs. revenue services refused the request because the reminder sent in August 2018 advised the amount due to prevent the summons being issued. The records do not show the Council advised Mr X the request had been refused. But the courts granted the Council a Liability Order in September 2018 allowing the Council to recover Mr X’s debt and the Council told Mr X about the Liability Order. The records do not show whether Mr X contacted the Council after receiving the Liability Order notice.
13. Mr X paid £86 each month from September 2018 to January 2019 at the rate named in the May 2018 payment plan. It was not the rate of the special payment arrangement set in August 2018. So, Mr X had a balance of £157.29 left to pay for his 2018/19 Council Tax bill at the end of the financial year.
14. The Council issued Mr X with a new Council Tax bill and payment plan for 2019/20 in March 2019. The bill also advised he owed £157.29 and said the amount was ‘subject to court action’. Mr X admits to receiving the bill and did not notice £157.29 was also due.
15. The Council says Mr X has kept to the payment plan for 2019/20. But as he did not keep to the special payment arrangement in 2018 the Council passed the remaining balance of £157.29 to enforcement agents to collect in April 2019. The enforcement agents sent a notice of Enforcement to Mr X and added a compliance fee of £75 to the debt.
16. Mr X contacted the contact centre about the recovery by enforcement agents. The Council says an adviser told Mr X the debt progressed as he did not keep to the special arrangement plan or pay the reminder within the seven-day time frame. Mr X said a previous adviser told him to continue paying the payment plan in place before the reminder stage. Mr X disputed the recovery action and advice given to him by the adviser in September 2018. Mr X was told to write an enquiry about the call so it could be listened to.
17. In May 2019 enforcement agents visited Mr X’s home. The enforcement agent left a letter to advise of the visit as there was no answer. This added an Enforcement Fee of £235 to Mr X’ s debt. Mr X asked for recovery to be put on hold alleging he had been misadvised in a previous call. A contact centre adviser told Mr X the Council would not place a hold on recovery action as the debt had progressed correctly to the enforcement agents. Mr X asked for a manager to listen to the disputed call and to call him back.
18. A manager listened to the call and noted Mr X had been told the summons would be withdrawn ‘if possible’. But revenue services refused the request. The manager’s notes show Mr X was advised during the call to keep to the special payment arrangement. Mr X did not do so and fell behind with the expected payments. The manager called Mr X and left a message. Mr X called back and told about the manager’s notes of the call. Mr X was advised to make a freedom of Information request for a recording of the call.
19. Mr X later spoke to the manager. The Council says there are no notes of the call, but the enforcement agents put recovery action on hold for 10 days due to Mr X’s complaint.

Mr X’s complaint to the Council

20. Mr X complained in May 2019. He said the Council issued a Liability Order when he was up to date with his payments, he was misadvised about the possible withdrawal of the Liability Order and which payment plan he should follow. Mr X raised concerns about the time spent disputing the matter, the enforcement agents’ actions and damage to his front door lock on the day of the agents’ visit. Mr X also disputed the contact centre manager’s interpretation of his phone call in September 2018.

The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaints

21. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It accepted the bill and payment plan issued in May 2018 was incorrect as it did not account for the rejected direct debit. The Council apologised. It explained why the reminder had been issued due to the late payment in August 2018 and this also included the rejected direct debit amount. Mr X did not pay the amount within seven days, so the matter advanced to summons.
22. The Council accepts the response did not fully explain the reminder and summons was due to the non-payment of £88.28. And the amount was not included in Mr X’s payments at the time of the August 2018 instalment. The Council says Mr X correctly paid the amounts needed on the instalment plan, although the August payment was late. But Mr X had not paid the amount needed with the reminder notice to prevent the account going to summons.
23. The Council decided to withdraw the summons, costs, Liability Order and returned the debt from the enforcement agents to recognise ‘the confused situation’. The Council apologised to Mr X for the confusion and inconvenience. The Council issued Mr X with a new bill and payment plan to include the missing payment of £88.28 from 2018/19.
24. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s response and said it had not responded to all his concerns. The Council replied at stage three of the complaint procedure in June 2019 and the response explained why it passed the debt to enforcement agents. The Council accepts the response did not address the other issues raised by Mr X and apologised for the failing.
25. Mr X’s outstanding concerns include the disputed telephone conversation with a contact centre adviser in September 2018. And the alleged damage to Mr X’s front door lock on the day the Enforcement agents visited his property.
26. The Council provided a copy of the record of Mr X’s call to the contact centre in September 2018 and the manager’s notes after listening to the call. This says the adviser correctly advised Mr X to keep to the special payment arrangement in place. The Council says the adviser did not promise Mr X the summons and Liability Order would be withdrawn. But the adviser but did incorrectly say they would ask if the summons could be withdrawn ‘if possible’. Mr X says the adviser told him to keep to the payments in the original plan created in May 2018.
27. The Council no longer has a copy of the recording as it only keeps calls for 12 months so it is not possible to listen to a copy of the recording now.
28. The Council confirms Mr X did mention in his complaint in May 2019 about damage to his door lock and his view the enforcement agents were responsible. Mr X said it had cost his landlady to replace the lock. Mr X said he would raise the matter with the enforcement agents. The Council says it did not pursue the matter as Mr X did not ask it to investigate or contact the enforcement agents directly. The Council says the enforcement agents confirmed they have no record of Mr X raising the matter directly with them.

My assessment

29. The documents show the issue with Mr X’s Council tax account occurred after cancellation of the direct debit. As the Council has said this should have shown up in Mr X’s bank account and alerted him he had not made the May 2018 payment. The Council issued a new payment plan as the direct debit plan was cancelled. The Council accepted it made an error by missing the rejected direct debit payment from the amount due.
30. I consider this was fault by the Council. It has withdrawn all Mr X’s costs, the summons and Liability Order and removed the debt from the enforcement agents. The Council has also apologised to Mr X. I consider this is suitable and enough action for the Council to take. I consider it will remedy any injustice caused to Mr X through having to pursue the matter and the visits from enforcement agents.
31. This is because while I accept it was distressing for Mr X to be pursued for a debt and visits by enforcement agents, recovery action was triggered by the late August 2018 payment. The documents show opportunities for Mr X to contact the Council to prevent further enforcement action. This includes receiving the reminder notice in August 2018. I consider this put Mr X on notice of outstanding Council Tax due. It also advised that recovery action would be taken if he did not pay the outstanding amount. The documents do not show Mr X pursued matters at that point. The Council also issued the summons and Liability Order and sent notification of this to Mr X. This would have altered Mr X the request to withdraw the Liability Order had not been accepted.
32. In addition, the Council issued a new Council Tax bill for 2019/20 which showed the outstanding amount of £157.28. This again put Mr X on notice the amount was subject to court action and contact from Mr X then may have prevented enforcement agent action. Because this I do not consider I can achieve anything more for Mr X.
33. The documents about the disputed call in September 2018 refer to the special payment arrangement and that Mr X was advised to keep to it. I am aware Mr X disputes this but as there is no recording of the call now, I do not consider any further investigation can resolve this. As the Council has withdrawn all the costs, summons and Liability Order I do not consider can achieve anything further for Mr X even if I pursued the matter further.
34. It is unfortunate there was damage to Mr X’s front door lock on the same day as the enforcement agents visited. Mr X advised the Council he was raising the matter with the enforcement agents which was the correct action to take. But the documents show there is no record of any damage being reported to the enforcement agents and no reports of witnesses who saw the damage being caused. Mr X needs to pursue matters with the enforcement agents first about the damage if he wishes to take the matter further.
35. The Council has accepted its response to Mr X’s complaints did not cover all the issue he raised. It has apologised to Mr X which I consider is suitable action for it to take.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I am completing my investigation. There was fault by the Council when it failed to include a rejected direct debit payment amount in Mr X’s new payment plan. But the Council has now withdrawn all costs, summons, Liability Order and recovered the debt from the enforcement agents which is a suitable remedy in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman