Summary: The Council incorrectly instructed bailiffs to pursue the debts and delayed in recalling one of the accounts and have agreed to make a payment to remedy this. There is no evidence of any further fault in how the Council dealt with Ms C’s council tax accounts.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms C complains about how the Council managed her Council tax accounts which date back to 2013. Ms C says:
• The Council incorrectly instructed bailiffs to pursue the debt, as an arrangement had been in place at the time.
• She believes that she has now paid enough to clear one of her debts.
• She complains that the Council have now arranged to deduct £22 per week directly from her benefits.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated how the Council have dealt with the debts since September 2018.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and information received from Ms C; and
• reviewed and considered information received from the Council; and
• communicated with Ms C about her complaint.
7. I also sent a draft version of this document to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

8. 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.
9. The tax is payable by monthly instalments. Councils have discretion to decide when the instalments will be payable, but the law says there can only be one instalment for one taxpayer in any one month. The council decides on the dates before the start of the tax year and they cannot be changed during the year.
10. Once a demand has been issued, if an instalment due is not paid, a reminder will be issued. If the payment is still not made, the full sum for the year becomes due as the right to pay by instalments is lost. A summons can then be issued, and the magistrates’ court may issue a liability order for the sum due. Once a liability order has been obtained, the council can seek to recover the debt by using enforcement agents (sometimes called bailiffs). Charges will be added at various stages of this recovery process.
11. The taxpayer can also enter into a formal arrangement to pay the council what is owed. It will be up to the council’s discretion what sort of arrangement to accept. Typically, the council will look to have the debt cleared by the end of the financial year and, if the debt is for a previous year, will also want to see payments for the current year kept up.

What happened

12. Ms C has an outstanding council tax debt on 2 accounts from 2 different addresses. The first covers a period between June 2013 & March 2016 I shall refer to this as Account A. The second covers a period between April 2016 to March 2017, I shall refer to this as Account B.
13. In September 2018, Ms C wrote to the Council and proposed a payment plan of a total of £5 per week, which she started paying the following month up until February 2019.
14. In October 2018, the Council instructed bailiffs to collect the debts for both Accounts A&B.
15. In February 2019, Ms C complained to the Council. She said the bailiffs had written to her demanding payment, visited her property and had added fees to her account. Ms C said this was causing her distress as she could not afford to pay the extra amount.
16. At first, the Council said it had correctly instructed the bailiffs as there was no payment plan in place.
17. However, In April 2019, at stage 2 of the Council’s complaints process, it accepted that it should not have instructed the bailiffs. The Council apologised and said it had recalled the debts from the bailiffs and removed their fees from her accounts.
18. In July, Ms C contacted the Council and said she had again been contacted by the bailiffs. She also questioned why £22 per week was now being taken directly from her benefits.
19. The Council said it had made a mistake and had not withdrawn Account B from the bailiffs. It apologised and said this had now been done. The Council said no money was being taken directly from her benefits for any of her council tax debts, and suggested she contact the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) about this deduction.

Analysis

20. The Council accept that it should not have instructed bailiffs to collect Ms C’s outstanding council tax, as she was making regular weekly payments. This is fault.
21. Upon realising its mistake, it apologised and recalled the debt for Account A. However, it did not recall the debt for Account B, leading to Ms C again being contacted by the bailiffs. This is further fault.
22. When Ms C contacted the Council, it apologised again and recalled Account B from the bailiffs.
23. There were no bailiffs’ fees added to either Account A or B, so Ms C has not suffered a financial loss. However, as a result of the failings referred to above, Ms C was caused distress by the action of the Council which could and should have been prevented.
24. An injustice such as distress is unlikely to be remedied by a payment, so we often seek a symbolic amount to acknowledge the impact of fault on a complaint.
25. The Ombudsman’s remedy guidance says that any remedy should reflect the circumstances of the case, including the severity of the distress and the length of time involved. It says payments are often between £100 and £300.
26. In this case I consider that Ms C suffered a significant amount of distress being pursued by bailiffs, and this was made worse when she thought the problem had been resolved, only to be pursued again. For this reason, I consider a payment of £250 to be suitable. This payment can be offset against the outstanding debt.
27. Ms C disputes the amount owed and says she has paid off at least one of her debts. I have not investigated matters that go back before September 2018. However, I have reviewed the chronology of the debts Ms C owes and do not find any evidence of any discrepancies. I therefore do not find fault with this element of Ms C’s complaint.
28. Ms C also complains that the Council is taking £22 per week from her benefits. The Council has told the Ombudsman that this is not the case. It has said that two payments were collected in July and August, but this was in relation to a housing benefit overpayment and not connected to her council tax debt.
29. I have seen no evidence that suggests regular payments are being deducted to cover her council tax debt, I therefore am unable to find fault in relation to this element of Ms C’s complaint.

Agreed action

30. The Council has agreed that within 1 month of my final decision, it will offer to pay Ms C £250. This can be offset against Ms C’s outstanding council tax debt.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have concluded my investigation with a finding of fault which has caused Ms C an injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

32. I have not investigated matters prior to September 2018. This is because they occurred more than 12 months ago, and I do not see any reason why Ms C could not have complained earlier.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman