Summary: Enforcement Agents acting for the Council served a removal of goods notice on the wrong property. The Council and Agents did not deal properly with Mr X’s complaint about this. To put this right the Council will apologise to Mr X and pay him £250.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains Enforcement Agents acting for the Council wrongly served a removal of goods notice at his home.

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. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
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 the correspondence between Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered section 92 of the Local Government Act 2000 which gives a council the power to make a payment to a person when its fault has caused injustice.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. On 4 September 2019 Enforcement Agents acting on behalf of the Council left a notice at Mr X’s home saying they intended to return to remove goods. The notice was for a different person at a different address who had council tax debts. Mr X says he suffers from anxiety and this threat made it worse as he thought the Agent might return. It was not the first time the Enforcement Agents had wrongly delivered a removal notice to Mr X, it also happened in 2013.
9. Mr X telephoned the Council but says it was not helpful, he says it told him to contact the Agents. The Council says it contacted the Agents the same day and clarified the address. The Council says the Officer who dealt with the call did apologise to Mr X but should have dealt with the problem rather that referring Mr X to the Agents.
10. Mr X also telephoned the Agent named on the notice. He left a voice mail saying the Agent had the wrong person and giving the right address of the debtor. He asked the Agent to call him back, but the agent did not.
11. Mr X says he did not hear from the Council or Agents, so he contacted his MP, who asked the Council to investigate what had happened. The Council replied to say the Agent visited in error as Mr X had a similar address to the debtor. It said it had resolved the matter and apologised to Mr X. The Council says it did receive a telephone complaint from Mr X, but he contacted his MP before it could deal with this.
12. On 19 September Mr X complained to the Agents. He wanted an apology and financial remedy for the removal notice. He also wanted to know why the Agent had not returned his call.
13. The Agents did not reply and so Mr X contacted the Council. On 15 October the Council told the Agents to reply.
14. I have an undated response from the Agents. The Agents said the removal notice did not have Mr X’s name on it so its Agent could not discuss the matter with Mr X due to the Data Protection Act. It apologised for the error.
15. The Council says it could not achieve anything further by considering Mr X’s complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure. It says further investigation by it would not change the facts and would not lead to a financial remedy for Mr X.

Findings

16. The Council is at fault as its Agents delivered the notice to Mr X causing him distress.
17. The Council and its Agents are also at fault for their response to Mr X’s complaint. The Council did not tell Mr X what action it had taken until contact from his MP. It then told Mr X it could not provide a financial remedy when it can.
18. The Agents are at fault for not returning Mr X’s telephone call and delaying in replying to his written complaint. The reasons the Agents’ gave Mr X for this are not sustainable. The Agents put the notice through Mr X’s door. Data Protection rules do not prevent the Agents contacting Mr X to apologise for this and telling him what they have done to prevent it happening again. The Agents could do this without telling Mr X anything about who the notice was meant for.
19. The Councils and Agents’ responses to Mr X’s complaint caused him unnecessary time and trouble.

Agreed action

20. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with the actions of the Enforcement Agents, I have made recommendations to the Council.
21. We publish guidance on remedies. For avoidable distress we normally recommend a payment of between £100 and £300 depending on factors including the severity of the distress and length of time involved. Where there is a fault on how the Council or its Agents dealt with a complaint, we normally recommend between £100 and £300 for the complainant’s time and trouble.
22. To put matters right for Mr X the Council has agreed that within one month of my final decision it will:-

• Apologise to Mr X;
• Pay Mr X £100 for the distress it caused him; and
• Pay Mr X £150 for his time and trouble.

Back to top

Final decision

23. Fault by the Council has caused Mr X injustice. The Council has agreed to provide a remedy. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman