Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Ms D’s complaint about the Council wrongly starting recovery proceedings for council tax. The Council placed recovery action on hold while it dealt with a credit on her account but went on to issue a court summons and obtain a liability order against her instead of issuing a revised bill. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms D complains about the Council wrongly starting recovery proceedings for council tax it claimed remained unpaid; as a result, she had the inconvenience of taking time off work to travel to court which caused her stress, anxiety, and sleeplessness.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered all the information Ms D sent and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent her. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Ms D and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms D is unhappy with the way the Council started enforcement action after it issued her with a council tax bill in May 2019 for £153.69. The bill covered February to March.
6. The Council issued a reminder notice in June when it received no payment. Ms D contacted the Council 7 days later. An officer said she would place action on her case on hold until the Council credited her account with £27 from council tax on a previous property in 2011/2012.
7. In July, the Council credited this amount to her current council tax account. The Council intended to issue a revised council tax bill for £126.13 on 3 July. Instead, it issued a summons and went on to get a liability order the same month.
8. Following Ms D’s complaint, the Council decided in August to withdraw all recovery action on the account including the reminder, summons, liability order, and £69 costs. It accepted it failed to give her the chance to pay the revised balance before issuing court proceedings. The Council apologised for the error.
9. In response to my enquiries, the Council sent a transcript of the call Ms D had with an officer on 25 June. This confirmed the officer ‘supressed’, or put a hold on, recovery action because of the query about the credit. The Council does not dispute Ms D’s account of the call which includes the officer saying she would not receive any further ‘nasty’ letters.
10. The Council explained the officer placed the account on hold on the system for 21 days. Another officer changed the 21-day period to just 7 days when transferring the credit. The system shows this officer intended to issue a revised bill which took account of the credit. The problem was the system automatically noted the period for payment following the reminder sent in June had expired. It then automatically issued court proceedings. The Council explained this problem was not clear to the officer at the time as the system updated progress overnight.
11. Ms D has £72 remaining to pay on her account for which she has a payment plan.

Analysis

12. Issuing court proceedings, despite a hold on the account, and failing to give her the opportunity to pay the revised bill before doing so, is fault.
13. I am satisfied this caused Ms D avoidable injustice. She found the summons, going to court, and having a liability order issued against her distressing. It caused her stress, inconvenience, and frustration.

Agreed action

14. I considered our guidance on remedies.
15. I took account of the apology the Council gave Ms D when it realised what had happened as well as it withdrawing all recovery action including costs. I also took account the time period involved from issuing the summons to withdrawing all the recovery action was about 6 weeks.
16. The Council will, within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint, carry out the following:
1. Pay £100 to Ms D for the avoidable distress the fault caused her; and
2. Take steps to ensure the error that took place when the officer credited the account cannot happen again on future cases.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Ombudsman found fault on Ms D’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman