Summary: Mr X complained a bailiff, acting for the Council, failed to present any proof of necessary documentation during an enforcement visit including a copy of the warrant or liability order. We found fault with the Council for its bailiff providing misinformation to Mr X. The Council agreed to instruct its bailiff to reduce the Enforcement Fee by £100 to reflect the additional distress caused through provision of misleading information. The Council also agreed to provide feedback about the importance of bailiff’s acting on its behalf providing accurate information.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained a bailiff, acting for the Council, failed to present any proof of necessary documentation during an enforcement visit.
2. Mr X says the bailiff failed to show him a copy of the warrant or liability order and disputes that any enforcement charges are enforceable.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
6. Mr X and the Council had opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Warrants and enforcement agents (bailiffs)

7. Councils will often use bailiffs to recover debt. Before instructing a bailiff, a Council will have a warrant or liability order for the specific debt.
8. A council or enforcement agent must give a person notice of the warrant or liability order before a bailiff obtains goods. (Paragraph 7(1) of schedule 12 of Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007).
9. Bailiffs have power to enter and re-enter any premises without a warrant. However, a bailiff can only do this when they reasonably believe the debtor usually lives at, or carries on a business or trade from, the premises. This also covers were there are potentially different relevant premises that a person may live at. (Paragraph 14 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007).
10. Bailiffs must show, on request, a debtor and any other person who appears to them both their identity and their authority to enter the premises. This requirement specifically falls under the section “Other provisions about powers of entry”. (Paragraph 26 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007).
11. The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 outline the fees an enforcement agent may charge when carrying out enforcement action. To charge the compliance stage fee of £75 an enforcement agent must send a notice of enforcement seven days before trying to take control of goods. A bailiff may charge £235 at the enforcement stage, this stage starts once a bailiff has made a first visit to recover a debt.
12. The fees outlined in the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 apply when an enforcement agent has followed the procedure set out in Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

What happened

13. Mr X accrued an outstanding balance for his Council Tax in the year 2021 to 2022. By January 2022, Mr X owed £495 to the Council. The Council had sent various reminders to Mr X before issuing a Summons on 25 January 2022.
14. On 16 February 2022, the Magistrates Court granted a Liability Order for Mr X’s outstanding Council Tax debt. The Council sent Mr X notice of this Liability Order on this date.
15. On 10 May 2022, the Council sent Mr X a seven-day warning letter that it would send the debt to a bailiff. The Council passed the debt to a bailiff on 29 June 2022 who sent out a pre-compliance letter on this date.
16. The bailiff moved to compliance stage on 16 July 2022 and applied a £75 fee to Mr X’s debt before trying contact again on 30 July 2022.
17. Mr X contacted the Council on 1 August 2022. The Council explained the balance owed and directed Mr X to the bailiff to settle the balance.
18. On 7 August 2022, a bailiff visited Mr X to try to secure payment of the debt. During this visit:
• The bailiff told Mr X who he was and advised that he was visiting to collect a debt owed to the Council and confirmed the total debt owed.
• Mr X asked the bailiff for any documentation to support the debt.
• The bailiff showed Mr X his identification and “Enforcement Agent Certificate”. The bailiff provided Mr X with information about how to check this online.
• The bailiff also showed Mr X his tablet to show what he said was the “warrant”. The bailiff also told Mr X a court had made a decision to “enforce the warrant” and he had “been charged for your [his] warrant today”.
• The bailiff told Mr X that an enforcement and removal team would be attending later this day if Mr X did not settle the balance owed and that he would not be entering Mr X’s premises right now.
19. The enforcement and removal team did not attend as stated by the bailiff.
20. Mr X contacted the Council on 8 August 2022 about the enforcement visit. Mr X said the bailiff had no paperwork, demanded a large amount of money and threatened to enter the pub where he worked and seize goods. Mr X said he did not want to deal with the bailiff further and offered to pay the Council £80 per month. Mr X said the visit caused him distress.
21. The Council responded to Mr X to advise him to contact the bailiff to settle the debt. The Council advised it would review the body-cam footage of the visit and provide a formal complaint response.
22. On 30 August 2022, the Council provided a formal Stage 1 complaint response to Mr X. The Council said both it and the bailiff had contacted Mr X before the visit to make him aware of the debt. The Council said it had viewed the body-cam footage and said the bailiff had the necessary paperwork electronically. The Council said the bailiff did not return in to collect the debt because they completed further checks and could not connect Mr X with the pub. The Council directed Mr X to the bailiff to settle the debt.
23. On 27 September 2022, Mr X paid the Council £579 to cover the cost of his Council Tax debt and the £75 Compliance Fee. Mr X did not the tell the Council the purpose of this payment.
24. A bailiff visited Mr X on 26 October 2022 to try to collect the money owed for the Council Tax debt and debt collection fees.
25. Mr X complained to the Council about this visit. Mr X said he had already settled the balance with the Council and disputed the Enforcement Stage fee because the bailiff could not show him the warrant on 7 August 2022. Mr X said the bailiff only showed him a statement of account which did not satisfy the requirements for issuing an Enforcement Fee. Mr X said the Enforcement Fee was therefore invalid.
26. The Council responded to advise it upheld its Stage 1 complaint response because Mr X had not provided any new information. The Council told Mr X he needed to settle the Enforcement Fee directly with the bailiff and directed Mr X to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the Ombudsman).
27. Mr X continued to contact the Council about this matter who directed Mr X back to the bailiff or the Ombudsman.

Analysis

28. The Council has followed the correct procedure in following up the debt. It sent correspondence to Mr X about the debt, issued a Court Summons and got a Liability Order. On getting the Liability Order, the Council made Mr X aware of its intention to pass the matter to a bailiff. Since Mr X did not settle the debt, the Council was entitled to pass the debt to the bailiff. I do not find fault.
29. Even though the Council passed the debt to a bailiff, it is still responsible for the actions of a bailiff acting on its behalf.
30. A bailiff can apply fees to a debt at both the compliance and enforcement stage. A bailiff must follow the procedure set out in Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to apply these fees.
31. In September 2020, the Council instructed the bailiff involved in this matter to act on its behalf under an “Instruction to Act”. The bailiff would be acting in accordance with the legislation contained in Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to enforce Liability Orders for collecting outstanding debts for Council Tax. The Council has confirmed that all the individual bailiffs for the firm hold this Instruction to Act electronically.
32. The bailiff sent Mr X the Notice of Enforcement letters about the debt. The bailiff contacted Mr X twice, before attending Mr X’s property, and properly progressed to the Compliance Stage. The bailiff was entitled to apply the £75 Compliance Stage fee and I do not find fault.
33. The Council provided the Ombudsman with the body-cam footage from the bailiff. This body-cam footage substantiates the details of the visit noted in paragraph 18. The bailiff confirmed with Mr X who he was and what debt he was collecting. The bailiff also provided Mr X with evidence of his identity and who he worked for. The bailiff completed all these actions in a suitable manner, and I do not find fault.
34. The body-cam footage shows the bailiff showing Mr X his tablet and saying that this was the warrant for the debt. The Council has confirmed that it did not get a warrant but instead got a Liability Order. It is not necessarily unsuitable for a bailiff to use the term “warrant” and “Liability Order” interchangeably as both grant similar authority to collect debts. However, while a warrant and Liability Order grant similar powers, there is a distinction in the legislation about what powers are conferred with and without a warrant.
35. The Council has told us it does not send copies of the individual Liability Order’s to the bailiffs. This is not in itself fault because the Council has authorised the bailiffs to act on their behalf in September 2020 with the Instruction to Act.
36. However, this means the bailiff who attended Mr X’s property could not show Mr X either a warrant or a Liability Order. This is despite the bailiff repeatedly advising Mr X that he was showing him the warrant in the body-cam footage and that a court had already granted a warrant. This is misleading information from the bailiff on the day of the visit and is fault.
37. The bailiff did not need to show Mr X “their authority to enter the premises” during this visit. This is because the enforcement officer made no attempt to enter the premises and said this would be completed in a visit later the same day. This requirement to show authority to enter the premises is only applicable when an enforcement officer intends to enter the property. As such, the enforcement officer followed the correct procedure, despite the misleading information, and was entitled to apply the £235 enforcement fee.
38. While Mr X may have experienced distress as a result of the bailiff’s visit, I would not find the Council at fault for normal distress. The Council was entitled to progress this matter to a bailiff. The body-cam footage also showed the bailiff generally acted in a professional manner during the visit, but bailiff visits, by their nature, are stressful situations causing distress. However, the misleading information provided by the bailiff will have caused avoidable additional distress outside the normal distress expected from an enforcement visit. The bailiff put Mr X under the impression a warrant already existed. The bailiff also put Mr X under the impression that an enforcement and removal team would be attending later the same day if he did not settle the balance; these statements were incorrect and added to Mr X's distress.
39. Following the first enforcement visit, Mr X paid the Council £579. Mr X paid this money with the intention of settling his Council Tax bill for the year 2021 to 2022. Mr X did not tell the Council the purpose of this payment.
40. Mr X also owed money to the Council for his Council Tax bill for the year 2022 to 2023. The Council could not have known Mr X was making this payment of £579 to settlement the bill specifically for the 2021 to 2022 Council Tax year in the circumstances. I would not expect the Council to have contacted the bailiff before the second visit on 26 October 2022 to make it aware of this payment. Additionally, the bailiff would still have carried out this visit since Mr X still owed the £235 Enforcement Stage fee at this time. I do not find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

41. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council should:
• Instruct the bailiff to apply a reduction of £100 to the outstanding Enforcement Fee of £235 applied to Mr X’s debt. This reduction is to reflect the avoidable additional distress Mr X experienced on the date of enforcement visit through the misleading and incorrect information provided to him.
• Provide feedback to bailiffs acting on its behalf about the importance of providing accurate information to debtors.
42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

43. There was fault by the Council as the Council has agreed to my recommendations, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman