Summary: We found no fault by the Council on Miss J’s complaint about the way it recently pursued her for unpaid council tax dating back to 2008/9. The Council was entitled to pursue her for the debt, despite the amount of time that passed. Enforcement agents initially wrote to her, inviting her to make contact and arrange repayment, before visiting her.

The complaint

1. Miss J complains about the way the Council recently pursued her for unpaid council tax amounting to £2,624.28 from 2008/2009 by sending bailiffs to her home while dealing with her complaint after she received notices, despite no contact in previous years: as a result, its actions caused her distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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)

Back to top

Council tax

4. Council tax is a system of local taxation collected by local authorities. It is a tax on domestic properties which is paid by the occupiers or owners.
5. The council tax bill for the year is due on 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 is missed, then the entire balance for the whole year becomes payable.
6. 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.
7. A liability order gives councils legal powers to take enforcement action to collect the money owed, which can include using enforcement agents or ‘bailiffs’. Enforcement agents will add their costs to the debt.
8. Case law says there is no time limit to recovery action on council tax debt. Once a liability order has been granted, the Limitation Act 1980 does not apply. Taking action years after a liability order has been granted is lawful. Whether it is reasonable to do so is a matter the Ombudsman can consider.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered all the information Miss J sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss J and the Council. I considered her response.

Back to top

What I found

10. Between 2008-2009, Miss J lived in the Council’s borough. In early 2009, she left London to live in another city. She says she lived in her current property ever since and her name was on the electoral roll throughout.
11. The Council got liability orders in February and July 2008 for unpaid council tax which it sent bailiffs in 2009. The bailiffs were unable to collect the debt.
12. In April 2022, the Council sent the case through to enforcement agents to collect the debt. It explained this was after a ‘recovery exercise’ when it decided to try to recover the debt again. The agent traced her and sent her a Compliance Letter by post. This encouraged her to contact them to discuss a repayment plan. She failed to do so. The agents then visited her.
13. In response to my draft decision, Miss J claimed she had contacted the enforcement agents. I asked the Council about this, and the agent confirmed it had no record of her contacting it at any point.
14. The Council explained it is a large borough with many residents who owe debts. Debt recovery is prioritised depending on resources to meet collection targets each year. Debts are not simply written off and the onus was on Miss J to settle the account.
15. In May, she received enforcement notices from the Council’s enforcement agents. The notices warned if, ‘you do not pay or agree a payment arrangement by the above date, an enforcement agent will visit you and may seize your belongings’. It went on to warn if the outstanding amount remained unpaid, or she had not reached a payment agreement by that date, she could be charged additional enforcement fees.
16. The same month, the agent visited, and Miss J explained she disputed the debt. They left. While Miss J accepts she owed the money, she is unhappy that despite hearing nothing for the last 13 years, the Council refused to allow her to repay the debt by instalments. Miss J complained to the Council.
17. In September, the Council asked the agents to temporarily place proceedings on hold for 21 days when it became aware she had complained to us.
18. The Council explained it issued her with demand notices, reminder notices, and a summons to court when she lived at her London address. It failed to provide copies of any of these documents as it says they were archived. It also explained she failed to pay the debt when she lived in its borough and nor did she keep to agreed repayment plans. It points out she was aware of the debt but, left without giving it a forwarding address.
19. It argued it was under no duty to put recovery proceedings on hold pending the outcome of a complaint or appeal.

My findings

20. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. On the facts, I am satisfied it was not fault for the Council to pursue Miss J after 13 years. The Council was entitled to pursue the recovery of this debt after getting liability orders in 2008/2009. It was not fault to pursue her for its payment.
2. The Council failed to take any action to recover the debt between instructing the first set of bailiffs in 2009 and instructing the enforcement agents in 2022.
3. While the Council might have found her sooner had it acted earlier, Miss J could also have contacted it at any point during the same period to query whether it was still owed and if it was, how she might arrange to pay it.
4. Miss J accepted she owed, and was aware of, the debt when she left London. I note in her initial complaint to the Council following contact by the enforcement agents, Miss J did not dispute owing the monies or the making of liability orders. Instead, she argued enforcement after all this time was an abuse of power and unreasonable.
5. I am satisfied the evidence shows the enforcement agents wrote to her before visiting. The letter invited her to make contact to arrange repayment. She failed to do so. Had she made contact, and negotiated terms of repayment with the agents, the visit to her home could have been avoided.
6. Miss J complained to the Council about its actions in May, but it did not place a hold on recovery action until September, and then only after it became aware she had complained to us. While there was no obligation on the Council to place recovery action on hold, it would have been good practice to have considered doing so during this period to give her the chance to exhaust the complaints procedure. I am not satisfied this failure to consider it amounts to fault.
7. Although I have not seen all the complaint correspondence between Miss J and the Council, what I have seen satisfies me it failed to deal with her complaint within its own complaint procedure timescales. Its stage 1 response, for example, missed its own ten working days timescale by eight days. In all the circumstances, I am not satisfied this failure justifies a finding of fault causing her an injustice.
8. Its stage 2 response was sent 25 days after the stage 1 response but, I have no information showing when Miss J asked for it to go to stage 2.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I found no fault on Miss J’s complaint against the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman