City of Wolverhampton Council (19 013 214)

Category : Benefits and tax > Council tax

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 18 Jun 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Council failed to update Mr B’s address and so did not notify him of a small outstanding council tax liability. This caused injustice to Mr B which the Council will remedy by making a payment to him.

The complaint

  1. Mr B complains the Council failed to update his address and so did not notify him of a small outstanding council tax liability. He was first aware of it when he received a letter from enforcement agents. He paid the enforcement agents to stop further action but complains the Council failed to help when he rang explaining what had happened. The bailiff letter caused him and his wife distress and he was put to time and trouble in resolving the matter with the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr B and spoke to him. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

  1. Mr B owns a property he rents out. There was a short gap between tenants which meant he had a liability for council tax for just over £18. The Council wrote to him about the liability but used his old address so he did not receive any of the correspondence. The Council instructed enforcement agents to recover the debt. The agents found his new address and wrote to him there saying there was now a liability of over £340. This was because it now included the enforcement agent fees and court costs in addition to the original liability.
  2. Mr B contacted the Council but was referred back to the enforcement agents. Mr B paid the sum and then complained to the Council. The Council realised that it had not updated its records when it received details of his new address. The Council arranged for the enforcement agents to refund the fees and it refunded the court costs.

Analysis

  1. The Council accepted it made a mistake when it did not update Mr B’s address details. It said the correspondence was from the letting agents and was about new tenants moving in and Mr B’s change of address was included in that information but was not explicitly referred to.
  2. The Council said the enforcement agents had found Mr B’s new address in June and had texted and left voicemail messages for him on his mobile phone. Mr B did not receive any messages and the first communication he received from the enforcement agents was the letter which said if the amount was not paid they would come to take his belongings. I do not know why the enforcement agents had not written to Mr B before and instead used a mobile phone number which it did not know was still current.
  3. Mr B was particularly aggrieved at what happened when he phoned the Council when he had received the enforcement agent’s letter. He said that the officers he spoke to refused to do anything to call off the action or to check its records for his new address. The Council said in responding to this complaint that officers checked the records for that account which did not show the letter from the letting agents as that was held on the account created for the new tenants. That was only discovered the next day by which time Mr B had paid.
  4. I consider there was fault in the Council not noting Mr B’s new address from the correspondence it received from the letting agents and a more thorough check when Mr B phoned could have meant that the information was found.
  5. Mr B was put to the time and trouble of having to contact both the enforcement agents and the Council to resolve it and to receive a refund. He also had the worry from the letter which threatened to take his belongings. All that is an injustice to Mr B which requires some remedy.
  6. The Council has apologised to Mr B although it recognised it could have done that in its first response to him. I consider the Council should pay Mr B £50 to acknowledge the injustice to him.

Agreed action

  1. The Council will pay Mr B £50 within one month of the final decision on the complaint.

Back to top

Draft decision

  1. There was fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings