Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (20 009 428)

Category : Benefits and tax > Council tax

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 30 Jun 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman found some fault on Ms N’s complaint about the Council’s actions when it pursued her for unpaid council tax for a property she no longer owned. The Council identified fault during the complaints process, offered her a payment for the time and trouble caused, and set out the actions it would take to prevent it happening again. I found no other fault causing her an injustice.

The complaint

  1. Ms N complains about the Council taking enforcement action against her for unpaid council tax for a property she no longer owns; as a result, she was caused anxiety, frustration, and upset by enforcement agents visiting her at home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered all the information Ms N sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent her. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Ms N and the Council. I considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Ms N owned a house (the property) for about 12 years during which time she rented it out to tenants. The last tenants left in December 2017 and the property became empty. She says she gave the Council notice of this but could not provide a copy of any email or letter sent. She also claims she told the Council about the sale of the property in December 2018 but again, failed to send evidence showing this.
  2. While claiming to have regular contact with the Council during 2018 about the property, she could not explain what happened about council tax for it. The Council said an inspection in August revealed it empty and unfurnished. It had a for sale sign outside. Ms N claims she told the Council about putting the property up for sale but, could not provide evidence of doing so.
  3. In correspondence with Ms N, the Council also used the tile Mr with the same surname because it was unaware of the correct title to use.
  4. The following are key dates:

2019:

  • January: The Council sent her another letter at the property serving a 14-day notice about a liability order issued by the courts. A few weeks later, its letters were returned as they could not be delivered. These were in the name of Mr N.
  • February: The Council’s enforcement agent issued a notice of enforcement sent to the property. This too was returned to the agent as undeliverable.
  • March: The Council’s council tax bill for 2019/2020 addressed to Mr N was also returned as the letter box was full. The agents visited the property but there was no response.
  • April: A council tax inspector visited and found the properly largely unfurnished. A council tax reminder was sent to the property but later returned. This was in the name of Mr N.
  • May: Instructions were sent to a tracing agent to find Ms N and the Council issued a summons for outstanding council tax. The summons was also returned to the Council.
  • June: The agents could not trace Ms N. Letters and further notice about a liability order were again sent to the property. This time the notice and order were addressed to Mr N. These were returned ‘addressee unknown’.
  • July: The agent sent the case back to the Council because they were unable to locate Mr N.
  • August: A land registry search revealed the property was sold in December 2018. Another visit found the property empty.
  • September: the agent served another notice of enforcement and a letter to the property to Mr N. The Council sent a closing council tax bill to Mr N at the property.
  • December: After a further tracing attempt, the agent sent a notice of enforcement to Mr N at a different address. She received a summons from the Council about unpaid council tax for the property and bailiffs visited her at home.

The Council received a telephone call from Ms N unhappy as she no longer owned the property. It also received an email from a Mrs M stating she received the enforcement notice but, the tenants left on 31 December 2017 and the property sold 12 months later. The Council asked Mrs M for evidence of her full name, details of ownership of the property, and the name of the tenant who rented it.

Ms N says she received no other correspondence from the Council about it before. The period of council tax liability was from August to December 2018 and amounted to £520.21 which she paid to avoid further proceedings.

2020

  • January: Mrs M confirmed she was Ms N and provided the information the Council wanted. Ms N complained about the Council’s actions. The Council accepted making some errors during its dealings with her and offered her £150 for her time and trouble. It removed the summons and costs related to it from her account and refunded her the balance of about £70.

Analysis

  1. From April 2013, councils have the discretion to charge no discount on certain classes of empty properties, including properties which are ‘unoccupied and substantially unfurnished’. (Local Government Finance Act 2012) It is for the council to decide whether a property meets this definition. Many councils offer no discount for empty properties.
  2. The Council’s website states if a property remains empty, council tax is still payable, and this applies to properties which are empty and furnished or unfurnished.
  3. I make the following findings on this complaint:
      1. Ms N provided no evidence showing she contacted the Council either about the tenant leaving the property, the property being up for sale, or notifying it of the sale. I appreciate she says she had a computer hardware problem but, there is simply no evidence from her of any letters, emails, or telephone calls to the Council to support what she claims she did.
      2. Ms N provided no evidence of the contact she claimed to have had with the Council during 2018 or giving her address to it.
      3. Although documents and letters sent to the property were regularly returned to the Council as not delivered, it continued to repeatedly send correspondence to the property over a period of at least 6 months. Someone needed to make a decision to stop sending further correspondence and consider alternative options. While I consider this is fault, I am not satisfied this caused Ms N an injustice. This is because the prolonged proceedings, and repeated attempts by the Council to trace her and serve her with documents, was due to her own failure to alert the Council to her tenants leaving, their forwarding address, and the fact she had sold the property. The Council would not have needed to take any of these steps had she done so.
      4. During the complaints process, the Council apologised for, and accepted:
  • the email it sent her on 28 January 2020, ‘misadvised’ her twice. The first was about a refund of £520.32. Information on its system appeared to show two payments of £520.32 but this was incorrect. The second was about the date the Council became aware she had sold the property, which was not December 2018 but August 2019;
  • there were delays dealing with the complaints. For example, the complaint she sent 29 January was not responded to until 26 March 2020, which is outside of its complaints procedure target of sending a response within 10 working days for a stage 1 complaint. Her challenge of that decision, received on 27 April, was not responded to fully until 11 August, which is also outside of its stage 1 response timescale The Council also accepted it failed to progress her complaint to stage 2;
  • it issued a cheque in the wrong name and then substantially delayed re-issuing it in her name. It issued the cheque to Mr N despite knowing by this time that it should be Ms N; and
  • it outlined what action it needed to take to ensure these errors were not repeated in the future and offered her £150 for the time and trouble caused.
  1. I am satisfied the Council has already identified what action it needed to take to remedy the injustice the above fault caused. There is no outstanding injustice to Ms N that needs further redress.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I found fault on Ms N’s complaint against the Council. The action already taken by the Council remedies the injustice caused.

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