Summary: The Council was at fault for not using available information to find Mr X, when trying to recover a council tax debt, before moving to recovery action. It has already admitted this oversight and refunded Mr X’s costs. It was also at fault for failing to issue a notice of enforcement to Mr X’s correct address when it found it. This meant bailiffs went to enforce the debt, which caused Mr X distress. The Council has agreed a financial remedy and will ensure its bailiffs are properly trained in correct enforcement procedure.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council missed an opportunity to contact him to discuss council tax arrears, which meant the Council took unnecessary enforcement action against him.
2. Mr X also complains the bailiffs, acting for the Council, did not issue a notice of enforcement to his proper address while they were at the compliance stage. This meant the first time they visited him was at the enforcement stage. He says this caused him unnecessary distress.

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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided.
7. I considered the Council’s comments and the information it provided.
8. I considered relevant legislation which provides the Council and bailiffs the power to recover outstanding debts.
9. I considered relevant codes of practice which advise how the Council and bailiffs should act when recovering a debt.
10. I considered the Council’s procedure for council tax recovery.
11. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

12. Mr X owned a house, which he moved out of and let from 2010 onwards. I refer to this house as property A.
13. Mr X’s letting agent had a record of another address for him (property B).
14. The Council had another former address on its records for Mr X (property C).
15. In 2019, Mr X moved to his current address (property D). He did not tell the Council where he was moving to. Mr X said he did not realise he could be liable for council tax at two different properties.

What should have happened

Council Tax Recovery

16. 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.
17. The Government has issued a best practice guide to all Councils in relation to council tax collection (the guide) where there are instances of non-payment. It says Councils should consider using information it already has including past interactions it has had with debtors.
18. The Council policy on council tax recovery also says an investigation into a debtor’s circumstances will help it decide which recovery action it should take. This investigation will involve gathering information about the debtor from a range of internal sources.

Bailiffs

19. The council may ask bailiffs to attend a person’s property and seize goods to the value of a council tax debt, if it has a liability order from the Magistrates Court
20. Bailiffs’ powers to seize goods are set out in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (“the Act”). Schedule 12 of the Act provides a clear procedure for how bailiffs may take control of goods.
21. Section 8 of the Regulation says Notice of Enforcement must be given:
1. by post addressed to the debtor at the place, or one of the places, where the debtor usually lives or carries on a trade or business;
2. by fax or other means of electronic communication; or
3. by delivery by hand through the letter box of the place, or one of the places, where the debtor usually lives or carries on a trade or business.

Interpretation Act 1978

22. The laws under which summonses and other documents are served say documents may be served on a person by delivering it to them in person or sending it by post to their proper address. Proper address is taken to be the last known address unless the contrary is proved.

What happened

23. In April 2019, Mr X’s letting agent sent the Council an email giving it details of a new tenant for property A, for council tax purposes. The email included the postal address (B) as a contact address for Mr X and Mr X’s current email address.
24. In June 2021, the tenant at property A left, meaning Mr X became liable for council tax.
25. In July, the Council sent Mr X a council tax bill to property C, which was shortly returned to the Council as undelivered. Later that month, the Council sent Mr X the same bill at property B.
26. After the Council got no response, it sent Mr X a first reminder, followed by a final notice. Then, in October, it sent a summons telling Mr X to appear at court. These were all sent to property B. The Council was unaware the letters had not been delivered.
27. In October, the court issued a liability order for Mr X, and, in November, the Council instructed a firm of enforcement agents (bailiffs) to recover the outstanding sum owed, now including court costs.
28. On 15 November the bailiffs sent Mr X a Notice of Enforcement (NOE) at property B. The notice required Mr X respond to the notice by 29 November or the bailiffs would proceed with enforcement.
29. On 26 November, the bailiffs’ case notes record a ‘trace’ entry, saying it had another address recorded for Mr X (property D – his correct address). The entry also said this address was correct in October 2021.
30. On 29 November, the case notes show the bailiffs had moved Mr X’s case to an enforcement stage, as they have recorded the stage as ‘Taking Control Goods’.
31. In December, the bailiffs visited property B and the new owner explained Mr X was no longer living there. The new owner told the bailiffs she had lived there for 4 years.
32. Following this visit, the bailiffs carried out another address check and changed
    Mr X’s address from property B to property D. At the same time, they changed the status of the case from ‘Taking Control Goods’ to ‘Taking Control Goods in 1 day’.
33. In February 2022, the bailiffs went to property D and, because Mr X was not there, left a note.
34. The note was a pro forma headed note with the name of the enforcement agency. The note also included the name of the bailiff who visited, a contact telephone number for the bailiffs and the amount of money outstanding. Across the top of the note was handwritten: ’24 HOURS NOTICE!’
35. Following this, Mr X contacted both the Council and the bailiffs to resolve the outstanding debt owed.
36. Mr X made a complaint, and the Council admitted it had an email address for
    Mr X that it could have used to assist it recovering the council tax liability (before it instructed the bailiffs). The Council agreed to waive all outstanding fees associated with the recovery action, including bailiffs’ fees.

My Findings

Council Tax Recovery

37. The guide recommends councils consider using the information they already hold on residents to help decide which debt recovery methods to use. The Council’s policy mirrors this approach.
38. The Council had the means to contact Mr X, using his email address, when it became aware of a non-payment. They did not consider using Mr X’s email to contact him at any point during the recovery process.
39. This was fault and the Council has accepted this, admitting that having an available email address and not using it was an oversight. It also waived the fees associated with the recovery action.
40. This is a sufficient remedy for any injustice to Mr X associated with the Council’s failure to contact him on his email address.

Bailiffs

41. When the Council instructed the bailiffs, it told them Mr X’s address was property B.
42. The law says a notice is ‘served’ if posted to the last known address. There was no fault by the bailiffs serving a NOE on 15 November to Mr X at property B, as this was the address the Council gave them.
43. On 26 November the bailiffs were aware of another address at which Mr X may have an association (property D), which was showing as relevant in October that year.
44. The bailiffs did not consider serving another NOE at property D at this point.
45. This is not fault, because there was no other evidence that property B was not a proper address for service. I have no evidence to tell me what the source of the ‘trace’ entry was and how reliable it was.
46. On 29 November, the bailiffs moved the case to enforcement stage and the case notes show the case stage was now ‘taking control goods’.
47. After they visited property B, the bailiffs updated the case notes saying property D was the new address for Mr X. At that point the bailiffs had the same information as in the previous ‘trace’ entry, but with the knowledge gained from a visit and discussion with a person who was now living at property B, who told them they had lived there for 4 years.
48. The bailiffs did not then re-issue a NOE. It would have been obvious the original NOE was served at the wrong address. The bailiffs should have issued an NOE to the new address – property D. The Council was at fault for the bailiffs’ failure to do this.
49. Furthermore, the case notes show the case status changed after the visit to property B to a ‘Taking Control Goods in 1 day’ status. This update when considered along with the note left for Mr X, saying “24 HOURS NOTICE!”, means it was likely the bailiffs intended to return and seize goods if Mr X did not respond.
50. There is no explanation for why the bailiffs took a different approach or escalated the case status between visiting properties B and D – despite knowing
    Mr X had not received their NOE. This too was fault by the Council, as its policy says it expects bailiffs to operate in a manner that is fair and consistent.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. The Council has agreed, within six weeks of this decision, to:
1. Make a payment of £150 to Mr X to recognise the avoidable distress he experienced from the enforcement action.
2. Ensure the bailiffs are adequately trained in the correct enforcement procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

52. There was fault with the way the Council conducted enforcement action (including how bailiffs acted on the Council’s behalf). The agreed action is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman