Summary: Ms X complained that the Council should not have passed a council tax debt to bailiffs and they did not acknowledge her vulnerability. She also complained the amount of council tax she was charged was too high. We found the Council should have referred her case to its welfare team to assess if her account should be with bailiffs. In the course of the investigation the Council provided inaccurate information about the bailiff fees that had been applied. It also stated the fees had been withdrawn. This was not the case, only some of the fees were withdrawn. We recommended a payment to Ms X to refund the remaining fees she paid and to recognise the time and trouble she was put to pursuing her complaint. However, we found no fault with the way officers dealt with Ms X or with the way council tax deductions were applied.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that:
2. The Council acted inappropriately when it passed a council tax debt to bailiffs in 2018. Ms X reduced the payments she was making towards the arrears when she became unemployed. She complained the Council should have provided a warning or contacted her to discuss the situation before passing the account to bailiffs. So, it was wrong that she paid bailiff costs.
3. Ms X also complains that she should be classed as a vulnerable adult because of a heart condition she has. This should have prevented the account being passed to bailiffs.
4. In 2018 Ms X’s Council tax increased significantly without any explanation. She complained the Council failed to explain the increase was related to her daughter turning 18. Ms X said she struggled to keep up payments which caused her hardship. Had she known the reason, she could have provided evidence her daughter was still in full time education. She complained after she provided evidence the Council failed to update his records and make the appropriate refund.
5. Ms X says when she contacted council staff there were oppressive, aggressive and bullying and as a result she was frightened to contact the Council.
6. Ms X also complained there were issues with the payment of housing benefit and council tax reduction claims.

Back to top

What I have investigated

7. I have investigated the issues Ms X raised about a debt being passed to bailiffs, why her council tax bill increased and her comments about how she was treated by officers. I have not investigated the issues Mrs X raised about benefits. I have not investigated events before 2018. The reasons for this are set out in the last section of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

8. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
9. 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)
10. 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

11. I spoke to Ms X and considered the complaint she made and information she provided. I asked the Council for information and I considered its response to the complaint.
12. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision, and revision to the decision I made after more information was provided. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Taking Control of Goods National Standards 2014

13. Paragraphs 70-78 of the standards state enforcement agents have a role in ensuring vulnerable people are protected. The guidance encourages the appropriate use of discretion. It says a debtor may be considered vulnerable if through age, health or disability they are unable to safeguard their own personal welfare. Examples of people who may be vulnerable include people who with disabilities or those who are seriously ill. An enforcement agent should report the circumstances of anyone who is vulnerable to the creditor (the Council) where there is evidence of potential concern.

What happened

14. Ms X had some historic council tax arrears. A number of years ago she began making payments of £40 per month on top of her current council tax to clear the outstanding amount.
15. In August 2018 Ms X told the Council she could no longer afford to pay £40 per month and she had dropped her standing order to £10 per month. An officer noted what Ms X told them, but told her £10 per month would not be enough to repay the arrears. The officer suggested that she sought advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB).
16. On 31 October when Ms X called the Council, an officer told her the debt for her previous years arrears had been passed to bailiffs. The officer stated Ms X would need to contact them to make a payment arrangement.
17. On 29 January 2019 Ms X told the Council she had paid the council tax arrears debt of £191.36 to the bailiffs. The Council advised that this was the amount of council taxed owed, but there may also be bailiff costs.
18. On 30 January Ms X wrote to the bailiffs. She asked for a breakdown of the amounts owed and she asked them not to visit her address because it was causing her anxiety, stress and heart pain. She stated under regulations 70-78 of the Taking Control of Goods National Standards 2014 she was considered a vulnerable adult. She stated the Council and bailiff actions were putting her at risk of a heart attack.
19. The Council says the bailiffs no longer have records of what they did to assess vulnerability when Ms X raised this. However, Ms X told us that the bailiffs completed a health survey and after doing so they decided the account should not be passed back to the Council.
20. On 15 March the Council made a record of a call from Ms X asking for bailiff action to be placed on hold. She stated she was a vulnerable adult. The officer told her they could not do that, but suggested she put this in writing. While on the call the officer asked Ms X how many adults lived at the property. Mrs X confirmed she lived there with her 19-year-old daughter, but she was still in full time education. The notes state that the officer told Ms X to send a certificate to confirm her daughter was still in education.
21. On 29 March the Council amended Ms X’s council tax bill and removed the single occupier discount. This was because there were now two adults in the house. The Council says it noted Ms X’s daughter was a student and that a student certificate was awaited.
22. On 12 April 2019 the bailiffs returned Ms X’s historic arrears account to the Council and the Council says it withdrew the bailiff fees.
23. In July 2019 Ms X spoke to the Council about her council tax account and her benefit claims. The Council noted there seemed to be confusion about what Ms X was entitled to claim. They advised this was Universal Credit and Council Tax Reduction. The Council also advised that a student certificate needed to be provided for Ms X’s daughter so that a student exemption could be applied.
24. I understand Ms X subsequently provided the student certificates for the period 2017 onwards. These were obtained by Ms X in February 2020.
25. In March 2020 the Council issued a revised council tax bill to Ms X. It provided a discount for the period that Ms X’s daughter was a student between 10 May 2018 and 31 March 2019, and from 1 April 2019 to 16 September 2019. It granted a single person discount for Ms X from 17 September 2019 to 31 March 2020.
26. The Council responded to correspondence from Mrs X and to her MP in November 2020. It explained, following receipt of the student certificates it granted a discount of 25% from Miss X’s council tax bill. It explained why this was the correct amount. It noted a revised bill had been issued which showed the discounts had been granted and this reduced the council tax Ms X had to pay.

The Council’s response to our enquiries

27. When we made enquiries of the Council, it initially advised us that only £80 of charges had been added to Ms X’s debt account with the bailiffs. It stated it withdrew the fees when bailiffs returned the account to the Council in April 2019. We progressed our investigation on this basis.
28. When Ms X challenged this, we asked the Council to provide further evidence. It sent a statement that showed the council tax debts passed to bailiffs were amounts of £213.54 and £512.54. This was a total of £726.08 of outstanding council tax.
29. The statements show that bailiffs charged Ms X two £75 enforcement fees on 1 November 2018 (because her debt was for two separate council tax years).
30. Ms X made nine weekly standing order payments of £76.08 and one final payment of £191.36 (a total of £876.08). This paid the outstanding council tax of £726.08 plus £150.00 in bailiff fees. The bailiffs statements show it had also added a further fee of £235.00. However, the £235.00 fee was withdrawn when the account was returned to the Council in April 2019.

Was there fault by the Council

Notification the account would be passed to bailiffs

31. Ms X complained that she received no prior notification when the Council passed her account to bailiffs in late 2018. The Council provided no indication that it had written to her when it originally responded to our enquiries. The Council subsequently stated a letter had been sent in September, but no copy of this was provided. It does not appear Ms X was told the account would be passed to bailiffs when she spoke to officers and she did not receive a letter from the Council. It would have been good practice to notify Ms X prior to taking this action, in my view.
32. However, the £40 payments formed part of a payment arrangement with the Council to repay historic council tax debts. The Council had already obtained a liability order for the debts and it was entitled to take recovery action in these circumstances. This is because Ms X had not maintained the payments arranged. So, I do not consider the lack of a letter to notify Ms X before passing on the account represents fault by the Council.

Vulnerability

33. Ms X told bailiffs that she was vulnerable when her debt was first passed to them in late 2018. The Council told us the bailiffs no longer have records of what happened that long ago. However, Ms X indicated that the bailiffs had assessed her health before deciding not to send her account back to the Council. Although I do not have the details of the bailiff actions or the health assessment that was carried out, it seems that the bailiffs did not ignore Ms X’s comments. On balance I do not find there was fault by the bailiffs.
34. The Council told us if someone makes them aware that they are vulnerable, they refer their case to the welfare rights team. The team would assess their welfare to make sure they had proper financial assistance or support. The Council’s case records show that Ms X told a council officer she was a vulnerable person in March 2019. The officer suggested she sought help from the Citizens Advice Bureau (which Ms X had used some years before) but they did not refer her to the welfare team, as the Council says it should. This was fault.
35. As the Council told us the account was withdrawn from bailiffs and it waived the bailiff fees, we decided there was little remaining injustice to Ms X. However, the new evidence we received showed this was not an accurate version of events. As well as repaying the outstanding council tax to bailiffs, Ms X had paid £150.00 in bailiff fees. Only part of the fees (£235.00) had been waived by the Council.
36. As the new information shows Ms X had to pay £150 in bailiff fees, we reopened our investigation and recommended the Council should refund the fees she paid. It should also pay her £100 to recognise she was put to the additional time and trouble of pursuing her complaint further because the information provided to the Ombudsman was not accurate.

Increase to Ms X’s council tax

37. I understand there was an increase to Ms X’s council tax from 2018/19. This appears to have been predominantly because Ms X’s daughter became 18. When this happens and two adults are living in a given property, the eligibility for a single person discount of 25% is lost. In addition, the council explained council tax for the year had increased for all council tax payers. It is possible to apply for a student exemption if a young person remains in full time education. This effectively gives back the 25% discount for council tax. While I understand there was some confusion over this, it is the responsibility of council tax payers to notify the council of changes in circumstances and in this situation it was open to Ms X to provide a student certificate sooner. On the basis of the information I have seen, the Council acted reasonably promptly on receipt of the student discount information Ms X provided in 2020 and granted the appropriate discount. As a result, I found no fault in this part of the complaint.
38. I understand that contact with bailiffs and discussions around arrears can be frustrating and difficult. However, I have not seen evidence that council officers bullied, intimidated or oppressed Ms X.

Back to top

Agreed Action

39. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council should pay Ms X £250. This is to refund the £150 bailiff fees she paid plus £100 to recognise she was put to the additional time and trouble of pursuing her complaint further because the information provided to the Ombudsman was not accurate.

Back to top

Final decision

40. There was fault by the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

41. The issues Ms X raised in her complaint to the Council began in 2015. We are unable to consider matters that are not brought to us within a year of someone knowing of them. However, we exercised discretion to consider the events of the complaint back to 2018.
42. We have not considered any concerns Ms X had about benefit payments made to her during the same period. It is open to benefit claimants to make an appeal to a Tribunal if they disagree with benefit decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman