Summary: Mr U complains about the Council’s council tax recovery action and that it has not listened to the difficulties his family suffered over the last year. He complains it also acted in a discriminatory manner. The Ombudsman’s decision is there was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I shall refer to as Mr U) complains about the Council’s enforcement action on his family’s council tax accounts. He says the Council has:
• ignored the problems the family has had over the last year, caused by their son’s ill-health. This has necessitated one of them giving up full-time work. And several trips to Poland for medical appointments. But the Council has refused to take these issues into account;
• insisted they negotiate with bailiffs, who have not listened to them when they have advised they cannot afford the payments they are asking for. Nobody has ever asked them to detail their income and outgoings, which is what other agencies have done;
• has not let them appeal its decisions on the repayment amounts;
• has acted in a discriminatory manner because they are Polish.
2. As a remedy, Mr U wants the Council to allow them to make an affordable payment arrangement, or give them a chance to appeal its decision.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. One of Mr U’s complaints is about his appeal rights. Council tax appealable matters are whether somebody is the liable person, or whether a council has not applied a discount or exemption. The proper place to use those appeal rights is to the Valuation Tribunal (including any application for late appeals).
6. But I have investigated whether, more likely than not, the Council properly enforced the debts this complaint is about.
7. There is no right of appeal against a council’s decision on how to enforce a properly levied debt, or on the repayment amount. So this is not something I have investigated.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
9. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. In investigating this complaint, I have:
• considered Mr U’s complaint and documents he sent;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• spoken to Mr U; and
• sent my draft decision to Mr U and the Council and considered the response I received.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Council tax

11. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 cover both the way councils collect payments of council tax and the way councils can recover council tax debt. The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and associated regulations cover the way bailiffs may recover debts.
12. The council tax bill for the year is due on 1 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 missed, then the entire outstanding balance will be due (that is the full amount for the rest of the year).
13. To use the various powers available to it to recover unpaid council tax, a council must 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.
14. A liability order gives a council the legal power to take enforcement action to collect the money owed. This can include taking deductions from benefits, getting an attachment of earnings (this means deductions are taken directly from earnings by an employer and passed to the council) or using bailiffs. The council can decide which recovery method it wishes to use but it can only use one method for one liability order at one time.

Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities – Council tax collection: best practice guidance for local authorities (2021)

15. This guidance says:
• “…there is no one-size-fits-all approach to collecting council tax arrears”;
• many councils use financial statements and that: “[t]hese forms allow authorities to balance council tax recovery with the specific financial needs of each individual and consider longer repayment plans if appropriate.”
• effective use of enforcement agents (bailiffs) can also be an important way of recovering council tax debt where the authority is satisfied that there are no other appropriate mechanisms for recovering that debt.

What happened

16. The Council says Mr U has had debts on his council tax account going back to 2018. It had liability orders of some of Mr U’s debts. In May 2021 the Council agreed to Mr U’s offer for him to repay arrears on his council tax account at a rate of £200 per calendar month. It says Mr U made payments until September 2021.
17. In the early part of 2022 the Council responded to Mr U’s contact. It noted he had a balance of £435 on his current year’s council tax account. He needed to settle that account by the end of the financial year. It asked him to also advise what he could afford on the arrears from earlier years.
18. Mr U and the Council remained in contact in the early part of the year, including with Mr U making a complaint. One of the complaints was an allegation of discrimination by the Council, because he and his family are Polish.
19. By April, the Council had not received any payment. It reminded Mr U. He advised he was just back from Poland and apologised he had not paid.
20. Towards the end of May, the Council had still not received a payment, so it sent Mr U’s accounts to its bailiffs. The bailiffs tried to contact Mr U three times over the following month. Mr U disputes these contacts.
21. In June Mr U complained to the Council. He advised he was struggling to pay his council tax, as he had lost many days work. He offered £200 per month. The Council’s response said it:
• had to consider Mr U’s history of agreed payments plans and late payments;
• had put a 14 day hold on the account to allow him to contact the bailiffs;
• was unwilling to delay recovery action beyond that, including for the current year’s council tax.
22. Shortly after, Mr U contacted the Council by telephone, after further contact from the Council’s bailiffs. The Council says that Mr U:
• explained the situation regarding his family, including his child’s ill-health;
• offered to pay £20 a week. It agreed to that suggestion, with a first instalment scheduled for the following day.
23. Mr U did not make the first payment, so the Council’s bailiffs continued their enforcement action. At the end of July they contacted Mr U. He then paid the bailiffs £40. They agreed to set up a further temporary arrangement and emailed him the same day.
24. Mr U did not make a payment. In this time his employment ended. The bailiffs say they made several attempts to contact Mr U, but it was not until October 2022 that he contacted their offices. The bailiffs agreed to Mr U’s offer to pay £40 a week towards his arrears.
25. In November, Mr U contacted the Ombudsman. In response to my enquiries, the Council noted:
• the many recalculations it had made over several years to meet Mr U’s repayment requests;
• it had ‘greatly delayed’ passing the account to its bailiffs, while it made attempts to agree and maintain a direct debit with Mr U;
• it was keen to agree payment arrangements based on what a customer offered and thought they could afford to pay. It used to use income and expenditure forms. But its experience was, whilst these could sometimes be helpful, “…they did also not always address what is perceived as disposable income or priority debts and therefore a conversation is normally encouraged to address these matters”.
• It was happy to continue the payment arrangement Mr U had agreed with the bailiffs.

Analysis

26. The Council has provided a history of Mr U’s council tax payments. It has provided me with information about its summons and liability orders for the accounts this complaint is about. I am satisfied the Council followed the correct process in obtaining liability orders. So, I do not find fault with the Council’s enforcement action.
27. Mr U complains the Council has not sought to find out what they can afford to pay. The Council and its bailiffs have (several times) agreed payment arrangements with Mr U, based on offers he has made. This shows the Council has tried to work with Mr U constructively to address the debt: to reach a sustainable payment arrangement with him based on his own assessment of what he could afford. The Council was entitled to escalate action after Mr U did meet the agreed arrangement. I see no evidence of fault.
28. Assessing what the debtor can afford to pay is an important part of effective debt recovery. The Council advises it does not use income and expenditure information to calculate what a debtor can afford.
29. It is fair for the Council to note that financial statements have their limitations. But they do have their uses, as a tool for assessing affordability and sustainability of payment arrangements, as noted in the government's guidance. In response to my draft decision, the Council has said it has agreed to consider whether, in some situations, using a form in conjunction with a conversation with the debtor might be something for it to use.
30. One of Mr U’s complaints is that the Council have discriminated against him and his family because they are Polish. I have carefully considered this. The Council has followed the correct enforcement procedure (see paragraph 12-14). It has agreed several times to Mr U’s suggestions for repayment amounts. And I agree with its statement that it has held off sending the account to its bailiffs compared to what would normally likely happen.
31. For a debtor, the experience of contact by a bailiff is unlikely to be pleasant. But my review shows the Council has delayed escalating the action by sending the debts to bailiffs. And once the bailiffs did get the accounts, they have acted with restraint in their enforcement action. For example, they have not tried to visit to remove goods for example. So the Council and bailiffs’ action do not provide any evidence of discrimination.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I do not uphold the complaint, as I do not see any evidence of fault. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman