Summary: Mr B complains the Council wrongly issued a summons for non-payment of council tax. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council in this matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complains the Council wrongly issued a summons for non-payment of council tax, as it did not issue a reminder or final warning.

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. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
4. 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

5. I considered all the information provided by Mr B about his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and took account of the information and evidence it provided in response. I considered the legalisation relevant to the recovery of council tax.
6. I provided Mr B and the Council with a draft of this decision and gave them an opportunity to comment on it.

Back to top

What I found

Council tax billing and recovery: legal and administrative information

Service of documents

7. The primary legislation for council tax is the Local Government Finance Act 1992. The main secondary legislation concerned with collection and recovery is The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 SI 613 (‘the Regulations’).
8. The tax is payable by monthly instalments, traditionally ten from April to January. Councils have discretion to decide when the instalments will be payable, but there can only be one instalment for one taxpayer in any one month. The decision on dates is made before the start of the tax year and cannot be changed during the year. By agreement a council and a taxpayer may make a special payment arrangement outside the normal instalment scheme.
9. The Regulations refer to the date of issue of documents as the date left with the person (if delivered by hand) or posted to the last known address. Councils may refer to the date of issue as the date that appears on the document, and usually on the council’s computer system. But this may not be the date the document was actually posted. The importance of this is that the time limits for recovery start from the date of issue, not the date a person receives the document. A document is deemed to have been served by post when it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.
10. The ordinary course of post was referred to in a Queen’s Bench Division Practice Direction dated 8 March 1985 which stated:
    “… to avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected (a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting, (b) in the course of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting. 'Working days’ are Monday to Friday, excluding bank holidays.”
11. If a bill is delivered later than would be expected by normal post the taxpayer still has to pay on the due date. The council does not have to keep a copy of the document or send it by registered post or recorded delivery.

The statutory recovery process

12. The Regulations set out the process to be followed between the issue of a bill and the issue of a liability order, with statutory time limits. The process involves the issue of at least one reminder before issuing a summons for a liability order hearing at the magistrates’ court.

What happened in this case

13. Mr B owned a rental property at Address X. Responsibility for the council tax on that property fell to him from 1 March 2019 when it became vacant. The Council had already issued a demand notice for £182.39 for the period 19 February to 31 March to this address on 25 February, setting out that the sum was due by 11 March 2019. So, when Mr B advised the Council the property was vacant from 1 March, it issued an adjusted demand notice in the sum of £137.90 for that property for the period 1 to 31 March. It sent this to Mr B’s correspondence address on 14 March and received the relevant payment on 7 April 2019.
14. On 4 March 2019 the Council issued the council tax bill for Address X for the 2019/20 financial year to Mr B’s correspondence address as before. It set out that the sum for the year, £1688.71, was to be paid by instalments of £167.71 on 1 April followed by 10 instalments of £169 on the first of each month thereafter. Mr B says he did not receive this bill.
15. On 11 April the Council produced a Reminder Notice as the £167.71 instalment due on 1 April had not been paid. The reminder set out that payment was required by 21 April, and it noted that a summons incurring costs of £114 could be issued if payment was not received. Mr B says he did not receive this reminder.
16. By 3 May 2019 payment had not been received by the Council as billed. There was no requirement to issue a further reminder. The Council laid information at the Magistrates Court on that day, and this authorised. the issue of a summons. The summons was prepared and then posted on 7 May 2019 to Mr B’s correspondence address as before. The summons advised costs of £71.50 applied, bringing the total due for the year to £1760.21. It noted that the Council would apply at the court hearing on 7 June for a liability order and advised that if Mr B wished to query the summons or debt he should contact it before the court date. Correspondence with the summons offered a payment arrangement for the sum of £1800.21 (the increased sum including £40 costs due to full payment not being received), in instalments of £225.21 on 1 June followed by seven instalments of £225 from 1 July.
17. In addition to the statutory steps in billing and recovery which the Council is required to follow, if it holds a mobile telephone number for the customer it issues an extra reminder for payments due by text message each month. The Council says these messages are triggered manually by a member of staff and are usually sent between the third and seventh day of the month.
18. Mr B says that on 5 May he received a text message asking him to pay £167.71 which he promptly did, but two days later he received the summons. On 7 May he telephoned the Council. Its notes indicate Mr B was advised a summons had been issued because payment had not been received in according with the bill and reminder issued, and that Mr B said he had not received the bill or reminder.
19. On 9 May Mr B sent the Council an email complaining about the summons being issued. He considered it had not followed the proper process before issuing the summons as he had not received a reminder or other notice before the Council took this action. The Council agreed, as a gesture of goodwill, to withdraw the summons but did so on the basis that the April instalment had now been received. On the same day the Council issued a revised demand notice to confirm the on-going revised instalments of £176.94 on 1 June 2019 followed by eight instalments of £168 on the first of each month thereafter.

Analysis

20. I have set out above that the requirements for billing and recovery of council tax are prescribed by legislation and regulation. Given that Mr B had not paid as billed, because he did not pay the £167.71 due on 1 April until 5 May, it was not fault for Council to set in train the statutory recovery process.
21. The Council’s position is that it then followed due process in the issue of demands and reminders before a summons. Mr B’s contention is that it failed to do so because he did not receive all the correspondence the Council says it sent. The Council has certificates of posting for the bulk issue of more than 6,000 reminder notices for council tax on 12 April and more than 3,800 summonses on 7 May. The Council is not required to obtain individual proofs of postage for each document served by post. The Council would have to satisfy the court that the statutory documents had been properly served, but as noted earlier in this statement service by normal post is accepted and the Council was ready to progress to a court hearing with the evidence it held in order to obtain a liability order if necessary. Also, Mr B had received some post from the Council at the given address.
22. There is some uncertainty about the text reminder message and when this was sent and received, but it is not key to my consideration of this complaint. This is because it is not part of the statutory recovery process, but an additional step implemented by the Council before the right to pay by instalments is lost.
23. Mr B says that he found an email he received from the Council in response to his complaint offensive and patronising. In the email the Council’s officer said they were satisfied the documents had been sent correctly to Mr B’s address; it had not had any mail returned and suggested if he was not receiving correspondence he raise this with the postal service. The email said that while the summons and costs had been removed from the account as a gesture of goodwill, the Council would not do so again should a similar set of circumstances occur. The content of the email does not seem to me to be offensive and patronising, but this was how Mr B perceived it. The Council offered apology for any upset, and that was the appropriate course of action.
24. There was no fault by the Council in the administration of this council tax account in the period complained of.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation on the basis set out above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman