Summary: There was no fault in the addition of court costs to the complainant’s Council Tax arrears; nor did the Council fail to take account of her vulnerability. There was no fault in the Council automatically switching the complainant to electronic Council Tax bills, although it should have processed her request to resume paper billing. But this fault did not cause an injustice. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Miss P.
2. Miss P complains about the Council’s handling of her Council Tax. In particular, she says:

• the Council has added court costs to her Council Tax (CT) arrears, despite agreeing not to do so in court;
• the Council has failed to take account of her vulnerability in pursuing CT arrears; and
• the Council has failed to provide her with a paper CT bill.

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. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I reviewed a breakdown of Miss P’s Council Tax account from 2017 to date, comments the Council provided in response to my enquiries, and its correspondence with Miss P.
7. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

8. In March 2018, the Council applied to the Magistrates’ Court for a liability order against Miss P, relating to CT arrears of £406 for the tax year 2017/18. The hearing took place in April, and the court made a liability order against Miss P. It also awarded costs to the Council of £120. The Council then referred the total bill of £526 to its enforcement agency to pursue.
9. In June 2018, the Council applied to the court again for a liability order, relating to CT arrears of £1059 for the tax year 2018/19. In this case, the Council agreed with the court it would not seek costs, because of Miss P’s personal circumstances. The court made the liability order, which the Council later referred to the enforcement agency in January 2019. The arrears now stood at £1039 because of a payment Miss P had made in the meantime.
10. In late 2018, Miss P made a complaint to the Council. In a final response on 7 December, the Council explained the current situation regarding Miss P’s 2018/19 CT account. It explained it had issued a reminder notice in May after her April direct debit instalment had been recalled by her bank. She had not made a manual payment to bring the account up to date. The same thing then happened with her May instalment.
11. The Council said Miss P was registered for electronic billing (‘e-billing’) via her online account, and the bill and reminder notices had been issued to her this way. The Council said it had then applied for a liability order in June, after receiving no payment, which added £110 in courts costs to the arrears.
12. The Council said it had sent an email to everyone who held an online CT account in February 2016, explaining how to opt out of e-billing if they wished, and that this facility had always been available on the system. The Council also noted Miss P had accessed her online account many times since 2013, and had used it view bills repeatedly in both 2017 and 2018. It said it had not sent Miss P a paper bill since 2016.
13. The Council confirmed it was appropriate for it to have sought a liability order, because Miss P had not paid her CT on time, and that the Council had no grounds to apply to the court for it to be quashed.
14. The Council issued a CT bill for the 2019/20 tax year in March 2019. At that point, Miss P’s arrears from previous years stood at £1263.
15. On 27 September 2019, Miss P submitted a new complaint to the Council. She said she had applied for child benefit discount in June, because her daughter remained in full-time education, but this had not been applied. Miss P said the discount should run until June 2020. Miss P also complained a Council officer had terminated a call when she was speaking to her.
16. The Council replied on 1 October. It accepted it had not properly processed Miss P’s application in June, and said it had now re-instated the discount. The Council apologised for the error.
17. Miss P submitted a stage 2 complaint on 15 October, which I have not seen. The Council replied on 4 November. It confirmed the child benefit discount would run until the end of Miss P’s daughter’s course in June 2020, and would be replaced by a school / college leaver’s discount to run until November 2020. The Council said it had updated Miss P’s payment plan to reflect this.
18. The Council apologised its officer had terminated a call with Miss P, and said it had enrolled staff on a customer service course.
19. The Council explained again it had contacted those with online accounts in March 2016 about e-billing and giving the opportunity to opt out. It said it had no records of Miss P asking to opt out. The Council confirmed the fact it had not sent a paper bill did not mean it could not take enforcement action, and urged Miss P to contact the enforcement agency to make arrangements for her 2018/19 arrears.
20. The Council said it had enclosed a copy of its complaint response from 3 December 2018, which had been previously emailed to Miss P. It also said it was aware Miss P had made a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the Council, but this had been closed because she had not provided the necessary ID.
21. Miss P sent an email to the Council on 7 November. She asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She asked if the Council had taken account of two emails she had sent about the EA.
22. Miss P said she had not received a copy of the December 2018 complaint response at the time and this was the first she had seen of it. She said the only communication she had with the Council at that time was an electronic notification about a payment arrangement. Miss P questioned why the letter had been signed off electronically.
23. Miss P asked the Council how many times she had accessed her online account in 2016. She said the option to opt out of e-billing had only recently been added to the online system. Miss P also said the Council had not served a bill, either on paper or electronically, before the Council had issued a summons. She said she had discussed this with Council officers before the court hearing. Miss P accused the Council of changing its system “to account for the error” and said she would be reporting it to the Information Commissioner for investigation.
24. Miss P also complained the Council had added court costs to her arrears, despite the agreement with the court it would not do so.
25. The Council replied on 3 December. It confirmed it was aware of the emails she had sent about the EA, and explained again why it was taking enforcement action. The Council asked Miss P for more information about her claim it had agreed not to add court costs.
26. The author of the Council response said he would sign letters manually in future, if Miss P preferred this. The Council explained the December 2018 complaint response had been emailed to the account Miss P was known to use. It said it did not upload complaint responses or recovery notices to its online account.
27. The Council said the option to opt out of e-billing was not a new feature on its system, but had always been there. The Council also said it was upgrading its online system to make it more user-friendly.
28. Miss P complained to the Ombudsman on 24 February 2020. She said the Council had failed to take account of her vulnerability, as she had a child with a chronic illness. She said the Council had added court costs onto her arrears, despite its agreement not to, after she had applied for exemptions. Miss P also complained the Council had made “amendments ad hoc and without prior notification”, and that she had been automatically opted-in to e-billing, despite there being no change in her circumstances.
29. Miss P said the Council should offer her a remedy for her inconvenience, with daily interest of 8% since the time she raised her complaint.

Back to top

Legislative background

30. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 cover both the way councils collect payments of council tax and the way councils can recover council tax debt.
31. The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and associated regulations cover the way bailiffs may recover debts.
32. The council tax bill for the year is due on the 1st April. A council will usually collect payment through monthly instalments. If any instalment is missed the council will send the liable person a reminder. If a payment is still not made or a further payment missed, then the entire outstanding balance will be due (that is the full amount for the rest of the year).
33. To use the various powers available to it to recover unpaid council tax, a council has to apply to the Magistrates Court for a liability order against those it believes are liable. Once a council has obtained a liability order it can take recovery action.
34. A liability order gives a council legal powers to take enforcement action to collect the money owed. This can include taking deductions from benefits, getting an attachment of earnings (by which deductions are taken directly from earnings by an employer and passed to the Council) or using bailiffs.
35. The ‘Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014’ sets out the fees a bailiff can charge when recovering debt and the three stages they must follow:

• The Compliance Stage – a bailiff must issue a notice of enforcement seven clear days before they take control of the goods. The fee for this stage is £75.
• The Enforcement Stage – this stage starts once a bailiff has made a first visit. At this visit they can take control of the goods. Once they have done this they must give the debtor a notice. The fee for this stage is £235. If outstanding debts are more than £1500, bailiffs can charge a further 7.5% of the amount outstanding over £1500.
• The Sale or Disposal Stage – this stage starts once a bailiff has taken control of the goods. They must then allow seven clear days between the removal of goods and their sale. In this time a bailiff must value the goods and send a copy to the debtor. The fee for this stage is £110.

36. A bailiff may not take control of goods if the debtor is a vulnerable person and they are the only person present.
37. The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 say bailiffs may recover fees from the debtor. Where the debtor is a vulnerable person, the fee due for the enforcement stage is not recoverable unless the bailiff has given the debtor an adequate opportunity to get assistance and advice in relation to the exercise of the enforcement power.

Back to top

Analysis

38. The Ombudsman expects complainants to approach him within 12 months of becoming aware of the issue they wish to pursue. The Ombudsman may disapply this time limit, but he must be satisfied there is a good reason for the complainant’s delay in approaching him, and also that it remains possible to carry out a robust investigation.
39. Miss P approached the Ombudsman in February 2020, raising issues which she had first complained to the Council about in late 2018. Her complaint is therefore late.
40. However, I note Miss P says she did not receive the Council’s response of December 2018 until November 2019. I cannot say this is because of fault by the Council, but I appreciate it raised questions Miss P then wished to pursue again.
41. The Council has also provided me with a comprehensive set of information, and so I am satisfied I can still investigate Miss P’s complaints robustly.
42. I will address each of her points in turn. Before I do, more generally I will say I have seen a detailed breakdown of Miss P’s Council Tax account, going back to the 2017/18 tax year. This shows the payments she has made, the arrears she still has, and the discounts which have been applied. I see no sign of error in this, and so I am satisfied it is appropriate for the Council to have approached the courts for liability orders for her arrears, and to have then passed these to the enforcement agency.
43. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, Miss P also referred to “ad hoc” amendments the Council had made, without notifying her. This did not form part of her complaint to the Council, and so I cannot formally consider it. It is also not clear what Miss P is referring to here.
44. I do note the Council has reissued bills on several occasions to Miss P, after making in-year adjustments. This may be what Miss P means by amendments. But these are not ‘ad hoc’ amendments, they are recalculations on the basis of the discounts Miss P applied for. And there is no requirement for the Council to have notified Miss P, in advance, it was issuing a revised bill – the revised bill serves as its own notification. So there is no evidence of fault here.

The Council failing to deduct court costs

45. It appears this has arisen from a misunderstanding. In 2018, the Council applied to the courts for liability orders twice – once for arrears from the 2017/18 tax year, and once for arrears from the 2018/19 tax year. In both cases, the court made a liability order, each of which was then passed to the enforcement agency.
46. In the first hearing, the court awarded costs of £120 against Miss P. These costs form part of the arrears, which remain outstanding. In the second hearing, the Council agreed not to seek costs, as Miss P says.
47. I note the December 2018 complaint response says the Council added £110 court costs after this hearing. However, I have reviewed the detailed breakdown of Miss P’s account, and can see no sign of these costs being added to her account. I am satisfied, therefore, the Council’s comment in the complaint response was simply an error. This is unfortunate, but I do not consider it a significant point.
48. I appreciate Miss P may feel the Council should not be pursuing costs about the first liability order either. But this was a decision made by a court, so I am unable to investigate it.
49. Despite this, in response to my enquiries on this case, the Council said it was prepared to waive these costs as well, along with a £75 compliance fee raised by the enforcement agency, in order to facilitate a resolution of the complaint. I would have no grounds to make such a recommendation, and so it is positive the Council is willing to do this anyway.
50. I find no fault on this element of Miss P’s complaint.

The Council failing to take account of Miss P’s vulnerability

51. The Council has confirmed it agreed with the court not to seek costs, in the second liability order hearing, because of Miss P’s vulnerability. It has also explained to me, although it has two liability orders with the enforcement agency, the agency has not visited Miss P as part of its recovery action.
52. Local authorities should consider carefully a person’s vulnerability during the debt enforcement process. As explained previously, there are additional safeguards the Council should adhere to, when pursuing a debt against someone who may be vulnerable, or where they may be a vulnerable person in the household.
53. However, simply having a vulnerability does not mean a person cannot be subject to debt enforcement.
54. In this case, the Council agreed not to seek one set of costs, which the court may have awarded, because of Miss P’s vulnerability; and it is now prepared to waive another set of costs, which the court did award, to help resolve her complaint. The Council has also not taken recovery action against Miss P, despite the fact her arrears have been outstanding for 2-3 years.
55. None of this is required by law because of Miss P’s vulnerability. Not only am I satisfied the Council has taken account of her vulnerability, therefore, it has in fact gone beyond what is required.
56. I find no fault on this element of Miss P’s complaint.

E-billing

57. The Council has explained it wrote to all online account holders in March 2016, to advise it would automatically opt them in to e-billing. It says it explained in this letter how to opt out, if a person preferred to receive a paper bill; and also that it has always been possible to opt out of e-billing, at any time, through the online account.
58. The Council is entitled to serve CT bills and reminder notices electronically. It is not uncommon for local authorities to offer such a facility to residents. And the decision to use an automatic opt-in system (for people who use an online account anyway) was also one the Council was entitled to make.
59. The fact the Council has served Miss P’s bills and reminder notices electronically does not mean it cannot pursue her arrears. In any case, its legal authority to do so arises from the liability orders issued by the court. If Miss P felt the Council could not lawfully pursue her for CT, because it had not issued a paper bill, this was an argument she would need to have made to the court. The Ombudsman cannot investigate a court decision.
60. I am also satisfied the Council has made arrangements to enable people to opt out of e-billing, both at the time it implemented this system, and since then. It has been consistent with Miss P, throughout, that she is able to do this through the online system.
61. This said, I note Miss P made clear, in the course of her 2018 complaints, she wanted a paper bill. In response, the Council advised her how to opt out of e-billing. In 2019, she raised the same complaint again, and the Council’s response again advised her how to opt out.
62. I appreciate the Council made clear how Miss P could opt out herself online. However, once she had raised the matter again, it was clear she was unwilling or unable to do this. It would have been best practice, therefore, for the Council to have simply implemented this change itself. On balance, I consider this point to be fault.
63. I do not consider this has caused Miss P any injustice. I note Miss P says she sometimes has trouble accessing the internet, but it appears all her correspondence with the Council, with respect to her complaints, has been by email. Miss P has also emailed the Ombudsman several times since we accepted her complaint. So it is clear she can, and frequently does, use the internet.
64. This being the case, I do not accept a periodic difficulty with internet access could reasonably have prevented her from opting out of e-billing, through the online system, at any point in the more than two years since she first complained about it.
65. I note also the Council’s comment about the number of times Miss P accessed the online system to view her bill in 2017 and 2018. Even if she would prefer a paper bill, it is evident Miss P is aware how to access bills which have been sent electronically.
66. I find fault, which did not cause injustice, on this element of Miss P’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

67. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault which did not cause injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman