Summary: Mr X complains the Council obtained a council tax liability order without sending him a payment demand. The Ombudsman finds the Council followed the correct procedures for collection. It will apologise to Mr X for not spelling his name correctly on its online system. The Council has already agreed to cancel enforcement costs which is an adequate financial remedy to reflect the avoidable inconvenience.

The complaint

1. The complainant who I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council:

1. Obtained a council tax liability order without sending him an initial payment demand, reminder or summons and tried to enforce the debt.
2. Failed to answer his telephone calls and misspelt his name on his online council tax account preventing him from addressing the liability issue.
3. Obtained a liability order by presenting inaccurate information to the Court.

2. I did not investigate (iii) for reasons explained at the end of this decision.
3. Mr X says he experienced frustration, distress and time and trouble trying to resolve the situation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint.
7. I considered relevant legislation, guidance and the Council’s council tax collection policy.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have carefully considered their comments before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. Council tax is a tax on domestic properties. Councils issue one bill to each household. Residents of dwellings, including tenants, are usually liable for council tax from the date they moved into the property. If a property is unoccupied, liability passes to the owner.
10. The law says council tax services can serve a document about billing or enforcement by delivering it to the person, leaving it at their proper address, or sending it by post to their proper address. ‘Proper address’ means the last known address. There is no need to use registered or recorded post. A document is deemed to have been served by post when it would be delivered in the post. (Local Government Act 1972 (Section 233); Regulation 35(2) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992; The Interpretation Act 1978 (Section 7))
11. Where council tax is unpaid, a council may seek an order from the magistrates’ court known as a liability order. This confirms the amount owed and who is liable to pay it. The court must grant a liability order against the council taxpayer if it is satisfied the sum has become payable and has not been paid. Councils charge court costs for issuing a summons and a liability order. These charges should be clear on all documentation.
12. When a liability order has been made, the council has several options available to pursue the debt. It can instruct enforcement agents who charge fees and costs. (Regulation 45 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992
13. It is good practice for councils to write to council tax debtors after the liability order has been made to warn them it is being passed to an enforcement agent and the costs that will become due. However, there is no legal requirement to do so.
14. The Council’s recovery policy states that ‘Following the granting of a liability order, where a taxpayer or ratepayer fails to make contact with the council or fails to make or maintain a payment arrangement (including orders under attachments to earnings or deductions from benefit) the council may issue instructions for an enforcement agent to collect the debt’. This includes pre-compliance and compliance stages where the agent will write to the taxpayer and if necessary, visit their address.

What happened

15. Tenants occupied Mr X’s Newcastle-Under-Lyme (NUL) property from April 2016 till July 2020. Mr X said he lived at a London address during this period.
16. In July 2020, Mr X’s tenants moved out and he moved back to his NUL property. Mr X said he then waited for the Council to send a council tax bill to his NUL address. He believed if the Council did not have his details, it would still send a bill addressed to the occupier.
17. Mr X said he thought the Covid-19 pandemic was impacting the Council’s services and delaying the bill. He said he telephoned the Council twice, in September and October 2020 but the Council’s phones would not connect. The automated message directed him to the online council tax portal for billing issues.
18. Mr X told me that he did not send a letter or email query to the Council because of the automated message instructions. In November, Mr X tried to log into his online account but was unable to access it. Mr X said in December he tried an alternative spelling of his name and eventually managed to sign in, but there was no way to pay bills.
19. Mr X said he returned to his London property to check post and found a letter from an enforcement agent. He says this is when he first discovered the Council had obtained a liability order for unpaid council tax.
20. In December, Mr X emailed the Council and stated he had not received any previous letters. He queried why the agents had the London address as he had been living in NUL since July 2020. He told the Council he had moved in, sought clarification of the amount owed and asked the Council to cancel the liability order and costs.
21. Mr X also telephoned the Council to correct his name on his records. The Council later accepted that this was not done despite his request. Mr X said that he eventually managed to access his online portal using an alternative spelling and manually corrected the name himself.
22. The Council responded that Mr X’s name had been put on the NUL property when his tenants left. But as they had no information to say he had moved in; the correspondence address had remained as London. In response, Mr X again stated the London address was not the correct one to send bills for his NUL property.
23. The Council again advised that it believed the NUL property was vacant and without any information from him they sent letters to London. They advised he contact the enforcement agents and pay the outstanding bill and costs. Mr X replied that he was unwilling to pay the additional fees or charges as he saw no reason for the Council to have involved bailiffs.
24. In January 2021 Mr X called the Council and said the online portal was not working as his name was still incorrect. He paid the revised bill immediately.
25. Mr X sent further emails to the Council explaining the background. Mr X believed his tenants provided the incorrect spelling of his name and correspondence address. He said the Council failed to undertake reasonable enquiries to establish the correct details before sending letters.
26. At the end of January Mr X complained to the Council. He asked it to cancel the liability order and costs, apply a single person’s discount (SPD), correct the enforcement agents’ files and apologise.
27. The Council responded in March saying bills and court letters went to London as Mr X failed to update his change of address. The Council’s enquiries indicated Mr X was still resident in London and receiving a single person’s discount. Mr X said the Council misinterpreted this information and had only established he was the ‘liable party’ and not in occupation.
28. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response. He felt the Council had focused on the SPD issue to detract from its alleged failure to make reasonable enquiries as to his correct correspondence address. He escalated his complaint to stage two.
29. The Council replied at the end of April saying:
• It sent the council tax bill to his last known address, which he had failed to update when he moved back to NUL
• It did not send letters addressed to ‘the occupier’ as Mr X expected and it is the resident’s responsibility to contact the Council when moving into a property
• Telephone lines were working in September and October although it was a busier period. The pandemic had not impacted its services.
• It was sorry he could not access his online account due to his name being incorrectly spelt and this was not corrected despite his reminder in December 2020.
• Correspondence was sent to the NUL address after he informed the Council of his occupation in December 2020.
• It was unwilling to cancel the outstanding court costs because the order was properly obtained.
30. Mr X sent a further response reiterating he never received a bill at either address. He said he had tried to update his correct address, but the misspelling of his name prevented him. He said when the phone lines connected, they still advised customers to use the online portal and he could not do this because of the misspelling issue. Mr X also said there was no evidence to prove the Council had sent the bills.
31. The Council maintained it acted in line with its recovery policy on obtaining the liability order which led to enforcement. However, it put enforcement action on hold whilst investigating and Mr X was kept informed about the situation. Mr X said that the Council only adhered to this arrangement after he involved senior council officers and there was a period in which the agents continued to pursue him for the debt and increase charges.
32. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council and bought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
33. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed Mr X’s previous tenants had provided his London address. It also provided copies of a bill, reminder and summons sent to the London address dated 27 July, 22 September and 29 October 2020. It said a liability order was granted at the court hearing on 23 November, and the debt was escalated to enforcement agents on 30 November.
34. As a remedy, the Council has agreed to cancel the liability order costs and any further enforcement action. This is currently still on hold with agents during our investigation.

Analysis- was there fault leading to injustice?

(i) The Council obtained a council tax liability order without first sending a payment demand, reminder and summons and instructed bailiffs to enforce the debt.

35. Before a council can pursue anyone for council tax, it must have sent them a demand with their name on. Documents may be served on a person by delivering it to them (in person), leaving it at their proper address or sending it by post to their proper address. Their proper address is their last known address. We expect councils to take reasonable steps to find a person’s address.
36. The Council provided evidence of the bill, reminder and summons sent in Mr X’s name, by post to his London property. While Mr X does not accept the Council sent these documents, I see no reason to doubt the Council’s account. The bill and summons did not contain the correct spelling of Mr X’s first name. However, Mr X would have understood they were for him. I therefore find no fault in the way these documents were served, and I consider they were delivered as required by law.
37. The Council confirmed Mr X’s last known address was obtained from his outgoing tenants. Mr X believes his tenants provided the incorrect spelling of his name and contact address. The issue is whether the Council should have done anything further to check the details were correct. Further, if it was required to send a letter as Mr X expected to ‘the owner’ or ‘the occupier’ at the NUL property.
38. The Council’s policy is to send bills, reminders, and related correspondence to the liable party’s last known address. According to records, this was Mr X’s London address as provided by his outgoing tenants. It remains the resident’s responsibility to tell the Council changes to their address and circumstances and the evidence shows Mr X did not do this till December 2020. I therefore find no fault in the way the Council established Mr X’s last known address.
39. Once the liability order was granted, the Council acted in line with its recovery policy. This required written and telephone communications from the enforcement agents. Upon Mr X’s request, the Council advised the agents to hold further action whilst it investigated. It has extended that time during the Ombudsman’s involvement. Mr X has been kept updated about this which will have alleviated any associated anxiety.
40. The Council has therefore followed the correct legal procedure at each collection and enforcement stage. I find no fault in the way it completed the steps prior to the application for the liability order or its pursuit of the outstanding debt via agents.
41. The Council has also agreed to withdraw the associated costs of the liability order which Mr X was unwilling to pay. This is a satisfactory remedy for any unintended miscommunication between the parties.

(ii) The Council failed to answer telephone calls and misspelt Mr X’s name on his online council tax account, preventing him from addressing the liability issue sooner.

42. Mr X tried to contact the Council twice by telephone but could not get through. The Council explained phone lines were busy but working.
43. My view is there is no fault in the Council’s telephone service. I have taken into account the exceptional pressures on all public services during the pandemic. We would expect Mr X to have called more than twice because this was an important issue. And, I consider Mr X could have written or emailed the Council’s general email address to say he could not use the online account because the Council had misspelt his name, had he continued to have difficulty getting through on the phone.
44. Mr X said the Council’s automated phone message directed users to the online portal to resolve council tax billing queries. The Council admitted it failed to correct the misspelling despite Mr X’s reminder and this meant he could not access the portal. This was fault. It caused Mr X avoidable frustration and inconvenience for which the Council has already apologised.
45. However, I do not consider the spelling issue prevented Mr X from resolving the situation sooner or caused further injustice. This is because Mr X said he did not try to access the portal till November 2020. In December he managed to sign in using an alternative spelling. There was no option to pay any outstanding bill because by this time, the Council had already moved onto the enforcement stage for the unpaid bill.

Back to top

Agreed actions

46. The Council will write to Mr X within one month of this statement to:
• Apologise for failing to correct the spelling of his name on their online council tax system and any stress or frustration due to the fault identified.
• Confirm that Mr X’s name has now been recorded correctly on all Council records.
• Confirm the costs of the liability order have been withdrawn together with any related enforcement action.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I find no fault in respect of the service of documents before the application for a liability order, enforcement action taken or missed telephone calls. I find fault with the misspelling of Mr X’s name which caused him avoidable frustration but did not prevent him from resolving his liability for council tax. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

The Council obtained a liability order by presenting inaccurate information to the Court

48. I did not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the law says 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)

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman