Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to update its records regarding his liability for council tax and wrongly took recovery action against him. We have found the Council acted with fault, by failing to correctly update its records and failing to investigate Mr X’s liability at the earliest opportunity. We have also found the Council at fault for its record-keeping and inconsistent communication. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice we believe this caused Mr X. We have also recommended the Council act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
1. Repeatedly failed to correctly reflect his liability for council tax on its records; and
2. Wrongly took recovery action against him, resulting in enforcement agents visiting his home and clamping his work vehicle.
2. Mr X says the Council has not provided a suitable remedy for the distress its actions caused.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him.
7. I considered information the Council provided about the complaint.
8. Both Mr X and the Council were able to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Council tax - recovery action

9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.

Principles of Good Administrative Practice

12. The Ombudsman published the Principles of Good Administrative Practice (the Ombudsman’s Guidance) in 2018. The Ombudsman’s Guidance sets out the Ombudsman’s benchmark for the standards expected when investigating local authorities’ actions.
13. The Ombudsman’s Guidance stresses the importance of being open and accountable, explaining the reasons for decision making, and keeping proper, suitable records.

Back to top

What I found

14. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the analysis section of this decision statement.
15. In 2017, Mr X’s wife, Mrs X, sold Property H. Mr X says Mrs X told the Council about the sale at the time. Mr X says he never lived in Property H. I have seen a copy of the form sent to the Council in 2017. It contains a forwarding address and contact information for Mrs X. It confirms the date on which Mrs X sold Property H.
16. The Council says it sent documents to Property H, seeking the new owner’s details. It says it did not receive a response. The Council says it later received a telephone call from Mr X in October 2018, clarifying a homebuying organisation (Company J) had purchased the property. The Council says it closed Mrs X’s council tax account at that point.
17. The Council says it enquired with Company J in January 2019, but Company J disputed ownership of the property. When responding to my enquiries, the Council said it later reviewed its records in September 2019 and mistakenly updated them to show the property had been sold to Mr X, instead of by Mr X.
18. The Council then appears to have created a council tax account for unpaid council tax in Mr X’s name, for the period between November 2017 and January 2018 at Property H. In 2019, the Council sent a bill for this unpaid council tax to the address listed as a forwarding address. When it did not receive a reply, the Council sent a reminder, followed by a summons for unpaid council tax. The Council then got a liability order against Mr X for unpaid council tax, in December 2019.
19. The Council says these documents were returned as undeliverable in January 2020. It then withdrew the summons and liability order.
20. In February 2020, the Council wrote to Mr X via email, seeking a forwarding address, to write to him about outstanding council tax at Property H. Mr X responded and told the Council Mrs X had sold Property H in September 2017. Mr X said the Council had settled the account in 2018. He asked the Council to confirm the matter was now settled. He says he did not receive a reply.
21. In September 2020, Mr X wrote to the Council again. He said Mrs X had received a text message about overdue council tax at Property H, in Mr X’s name. Mr X said this was the third time the Council had chased Mr X in error. Mr X told the Council again Mrs X had sold the property in 2017 and asked the Council to confirm it had now updated its records. The Council responded, seeking proof of sale. Mr X says he replied to highlight previous correspondence. He says the Council did not reply further.
22. In February 2021, the Council issued Mr X with a summons for unpaid council tax. The Council then got a further liability order against Mr X in March 2021, for unpaid council tax. Responding to my enquiries, the Council says it sent these documents to Property H. Mr X says he did not receive these documents.
23. Mr X says an enforcement agent acting on the Council’s behalf contacted him in April 2021. He says he explained Mrs X sold Property H in 2017 and the enforcement agent accepted this. He said he heard nothing further.
24. In late 2022, different enforcement agents acting on the Council’s behalf sent Mr X text messages, seeking payment. They visited Mr X’s home and left notice of an intention to take control of goods.
25. Mr X engaged solicitors to help him resolve the issue. Mr X’s solicitors wrote to the Council in June 2022. They explained enforcement agents had contacted Mr X about unpaid council tax, despite Mr and Mrs X telling the Council multiple times that Mrs X had sold Property H in 2017.
26. The Council replied to Mr X’s solicitors in August 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding and sought proof the solicitors had authorisation to act on Mr X’s behalf. It said it would update its records once it received this authorisation. Mr X's solicitors responded on the same day. They provided authorisation, asked the Council to close the council tax account as quickly as possible, and sought an apology for Mr X.
27. The Council told Mr X’s solicitors that it could not accept the authorisation provided. The solicitors quickly provided authorisation in the format the Council asked for. Around two weeks later, the Council asked Mr X’s solicitors for details of the sale, so it could explore liability further. Mr X’s solicitors provided the Council with a copy of the completion letter and asked the Council to confirm if it needed anything further.
28. Around a month later, the Council wrote to Mr X’s solicitors, asking for the full address of the new owner of Property H. Mr X’s solicitors replied, stating:
• Mrs X had provided these details when the property was sold, so the Council may have this information already.
• Company J had purchased Property H. Mr X’s solicitors provided the address listed by Companies House, but said due to the passage of time, Company J may now have sold Property H.
• The Council would be able to check with Land Registry for up-to-date, accurate information about the current owner.
29. In November 2022, the enforcement agents visited Mr X’s home, leaving an intention to take control of goods. In December 2022, they clamped Mr X’s car. Mr X said he needed legal assistance to get the matter resolved and his car released, paying the sum he the Council alleged he owed, as well as increased charges. He made a complaint to the Council about what had happened.
30. The Council issued its final complaint response to Mr X in March 2023. The Council:
1. Said it had received conflicting evidence about who owned Property H during the period of liability in question. The Council said when it received evidence Mr X was not the liable party, it should have placed a hold on the account while it investigated. It said this would have prevented the recovery action, such as Mr X’s car being clamped. The Council apologised for this.
2. Confirmed it had cancelled Mr X’s council tax account, removed all added costs, and refunded all payments Mr X made to the Council and to enforcement agents.
3. Paid Mr X £100 in recognition of his time and trouble. It paid this amount directly into Mr X’s bank account.
31. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response. He brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

32. As set out in paragraph 4, we cannot usually investigate late complaints, unless we consider there are good reasons to do so. In this case, I have exercised discretion to consider actions the Council took in 2019. This is because I believe the Council acted with fault at the time, but Mr X did not know about it until later. I believe the Council acting with fault in 2019 led to injustice Mr X experienced recently, forming the basis for his complaint.
33. I have also considered our jurisdiction as set out in paragraph 5, noting that the Valuation Tribunal Service will consider appeals against council tax liability. However, I do not believe it would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal in this case. This is because the Council has confirmed it got two liability orders against Mr X, but that on both occasions Mr X did not receive the documents the Council sent to him. This included bills, reminders, a summons and the liability order itself. In the first case, the documents were returned undelivered to the Council, as set out in paragraph 19. In the second case, set out in paragraph 22, the Council sent documents to Property H in 2021. This was despite knowing that Mrs X had sold the property in 2017, and despite being told that Mr X had never lived there. Mr X was therefore unaware of the documents and could not have appealed.
34. Responding to my enquiries, the Council said it had mistakenly updated its records in September 2019 to show the property was sold to Mr X, instead of by Mr X. I have found the Council at fault for doing so.
35. It is not clear why this happened. The information the Council held at the time clearly reflected that Mrs X had sold Property H. Nonetheless, this error appears to have served as the basis for the events that followed.
36. The Council told me it accepted it should have investigated the matter further in June 2022, when it received a letter from Mr X’s solicitors. It said it should have considered then whether it needed further information to decide liability and, if necessary, suspended any recovery action at that point. I note the Council’s proactive acceptance of fault on this point and agree with its conclusions.
37. However, I also believe the Council had cause to investigate much sooner. Mr X told the Council at different times in 2020 and 2021 that Mrs X had sold the property and he had never lived there. The Council therefore had cause to consider the accuracy of its records, and Mr X’s liability, well before June 2022. The Council has not provided a clear rationale for failing to do so. It has suggested it asked Mr X for details of the new owners, but such contact appears to have been sporadic. The Council did not act to resolve this uncertainty at any point, before contact from Mr X’s solicitors. I have found the Council at fault for failing to investigate Mr X’s liability properly at the earliest opportunity.
38. It is difficult not to infer that, had it properly explored the issue of liability at the earliest possible opportunity, the Council would not have continued with mistaken recovery proceedings against Mr X. I believe the Council’s faults therefore caused Mr X an injustice. Mr X experienced avoidable frustration, uncertainty and distress by being subject to recovery action taken on inaccurate grounds. This included contact from enforcement agents, the possibility the agents would seize his possessions, and the agents clamping his vehicle.
39. The Council’s general record-keeping in this case provides some cause for concern. The Council twice sought liability orders against Mr X. Documents relating to the first liability order were returned undelivered, not due to any fault by the Council. However, on the second occasion, it sent the documents to Property H, when it was aware Mr X did not live there. The Council also did not reply to correspondence from Mr X or his solicitors in a consistent or timely manner, with some delays extending up to around two months.
40. I have found the Council at fault for its poor record-keeping and inconsistent communication in this case. These faults caused Mr X an injustice. Mr X had no realistic prospect of challenging the recovery action against him and was unaware of the action at all until he received contact from enforcement agents. When he and his solicitors did try to resolve the problem, the Council was slow to respond and occasionally did not reply. This unnecessarily prolonged the uncertainty and frustration Mr X experienced.
41. As set out in the Ombudsman’s Guidance, we expect Council’s to keep proper, suitable records. In this case, inconsistent and inaccurate record keeping compounded errors on the Council’s part. These faults, if repeated in other cases, may cause injustice to others. I have therefore recommended the Council act to improve its record-keeping.
42. In its final complaint response, the Council broadly accepted it had acted with fault. It apologised for not investigating further in June 2022. It cancelled the council tax account, removed all added costs, and refunded the payments Mr X had made to the Council and the enforcement agents acting on its behalf.
43. I commend the Council for taking these steps. However, I consider the Council’s remedy does not fully address the injustice caused to Mr X. The Council could have acted to investigate sooner and its response has not adequately recognised this. The Council also offered to pay Mr X £100 in recognition of the time taken to resolve this matter. I do not believe this adequately reflects the extent of the avoidable frustration, distress and uncertainty Mr X experienced, and so have made recommendations on this point.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Mr X, fully acknowledging the faults and injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our Guidance on Remedies document.
2. Remind officers of the importance of keeping proper, suitable records, and ask officers to review the Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administrative Practice guidance.
3. Pay Mr X a further £300 in recognition of the avoidable frustration, uncertainty and distress caused by the Council’s faults, bringing the total paid to £400.
45. Within six weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Review, at senior officer level, the faults and injustice identified in this investigation. The Council should produce an action plan setting out ways it will ensure the faults identified in this investigation do not occur for others. It should provide a copy of this action plan to the Ombudsman.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman