Summary: Mr X complained the Council sent council tax bills and correspondence to a property he had not owned since 2012 rather than his current address, and wrongly obtained a liability order and instructed enforcement agents to recover the debt. The Council’s failure to link Mr X’s properties and ensure his current address was properly recorded is fault. As was the failure to suspend recovery action when Mr X paid the outstanding council tax. These faults have caused Mr X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X complained the Council sent council tax bills and correspondence in relation to Property 1 to a property he had not owned since 2012 rather than his current address, and wrongly obtained a liability order and instructed enforcement agents to recover the debt.
2. Mr X paid the outstanding council tax as soon as he became aware of it and complained that despite the Council’s assurance that enforcement action would be cancelled, enforcement agents visited his home a month later to demand payment of their fees.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Mr X;
• 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

6. Mr X owned but did not live at Property 1. Mr X lived in a neighbouring council area, and paid council tax to that authority. In October 2020 Mr X’s tenants at Property 1 told the Council they were moving out. The Council says the tenants gave Mr X’s name as their landlord but did not provide any contact details.
7. The Council created a new council tax account for Property 1 in Mr X’s name and applied a discount as it was unoccupied and unfurnished. It sent the new bill to Mr X at Property 2 as this was the last address it had for Mr X that had been linked to Property 1. When the discount period ended the Council issued a new bill for the full charge. It again sent this to Property 2.
8. Mr X sold property 1 and the new owners contacted the Council in March 2021. The Council states the new owners did not provide any details about the previous owner. The Council closed Mr X’s council tax account for Property 1 on 25 March 2021 and sent the closing bill to Property 2.
9. The Council issued a final notice for the full balance of £168.34 in May 2021 and then began court proceedings and issued a summons for the sum of £168.34 plus costs of £67 in August 2021.
10. In September 2021 the Council instructed enforcement agents to collect the debt. The agents returned the debt to the Council in January 2022 as there was no current known address for Mr X. The Council then passed the debt to bailiffs in February 2022 to trace Mr X and chase payment. The bailiffs visited Property 2 and were told by the occupiers that Mr X did not reside there.
11. The occupiers of Property 2 also contacted the Council to confirm Mr X did not live there. He was the previous owner and the current occupiers had lived there since 2014. The Council then carried out an Experian search and identified Mr X’s current address.
12. The Council sent Mr X a bill for £235.34 to his current address. Mr X immediately paid the outstanding council tax directly to the Council. Mr X says he had expected the Council to send a bill for the outstanding council tax to Property 1. He had sold Property 1 to friends who would pass on any correspondence. He was unaware the Council had sent bills to Property 2, which he had sold in 2012.
13. Mr X had also received letters from the bailiffs at his current address. When Mr X paid the council tax bill he asked the Council to notify the bailiffs the debt had been cleared in full. Mr X says the Council confirmed it would cancel the bailiff action. However the following month the bailiffs visited Mr X’s property and required him to pay £310.
14. Having paid this sum Mr X visited the Council offices to complain he had already cleared the balance and asked the Council for a refund. The Council told Mr X the £310 was the bailiff’s fee and had been correctly charged. The Council refused to refund the fee and told Mr X it was a matter between him and the bailiffs.
15. Mr X continued to dispute this fee and made a formal complaint. He questioned why the Council had not sent a council tax bill to his current address until 15 months after he had sold Property 1 and why it had instructed bailiffs. He noted the Council had been informed of his current address in June 2012. Mr X was also disappointed that having been assured the bailiff action would be cancelled they had arrived at his door threatening to remove goods and charge an additional £110. He again asked the Council to refund the bailiff’s fee of £310.
16. The Council responded and noted the outstanding balance had been with the enforcement agents for a significant time before any payment was made to clear the arrears. The fee charged by the bailiffs was therefore correct and payable. It reiterated that Mr X had not provided a forwarding address when he vacated the property and it had taken time to obtain this information and redistribute the bills, making Mr X aware of the balance due. The Council suggested that Mr X should raise any further concerns regarding the bailiff’s fees directly with the bailiffs.
17. Mr X reminded the Council that he had provided a forwarding address in 2012 when he sold Property 2. He provided a copy of a council tax bill for Property 2 dated June 2012 which the Council had sent to his current address as evidence. Mr X asked to meet with the Council to try and resolve the matter.
18. In October 2022 the Council apologised and agreed to refund the £310 Mr X had paid the bailiffs. It noted the accounts for Property 1 and Property 2 should have been linked together so that the Council had Mr X’s latest address. However this had not happened due to an error on the Council’s part. The Council also explained that due to data cleansing in accordance with GDPR requirements it had removed access to accounts older than six years which had been paid in full. It was therefore unable to check Property 2 for Mr X’s address.
19. While Mr X was pleased the £310 would be refunded he did not consider this an end to the matter. Mr X told the Council the events had caused him significant distress and affected his sleep. He was in his seventies and received a state pension and felt he had been treated like a fool. Mr X asked the Council for compensation for the distress it had caused him.
20. The Council apologised for the distress caused but said it could not offer any payments by way of compensation. Mr X asked for his complaint to be reviewed at stage 2 of the complaints procedure.
21. The Council responded in February 2023 setting out the action it had taken to recover the outstanding council tax. It was satisfied the actions it had taken were largely correct given the information available to it at the time. It acknowledged it had previously held Mr X’s current address but this had been correctly deleted under the Data Protection regulations.
22. The Council also acknowledged that when it identified Mr X’s current address in June 2022 it should have suspended any further enforcement action with the bailiffs. The Council apologised for this and accepted the protracted nature of the issue had caused Mr X distress. As a gesture of goodwill the Council paid Mr X £100.
23. Mr X remains dissatisfied and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. In response to my enquiries the Council says it links people to properties using a numbering system, with each person having their own unique number. The number linked to the Mr X who owned Property 1 was never linked to the Mr X that lived at Property 2. When the council tax liability for Property 2 was updated with new owner/ occupier details this was not updated on Property 1 as the tenants, rather than Mr X were liable for council tax at that time. The account for Property 2 had been deleted and the Council did not have access to any documents linked to that account. The Council says there is no correspondence on Property 1 from Mr X advising of a change in address.
24. When Mr X paid the outstanding council tax the Council informed the bailiffs and told them to continue action to recover just their costs. It says this is normal practice. The Council refunded the bailiff’s fees when Mr X provided proof he had contacted the Council in 2012 with his current address. It says that until this point it had no reason to prevent the recovery of the bailiff’s costs. Mr X had not contacted the Council in relation to the end of tenancy or sale of Property 1.
25. Costs of £67 were applied to Mr X’s account when the summons was issued. The Council says that as the correspondence sent to Mr X at Property 2 was not returned by Royal Mail it had no reason to believe Mr X had not received it. The Council has not refunded Mr X these costs but has confirmed it would be happy to do so to remedy any injustice.

Analysis

26. The Council’s failure to link the accounts for Property 1 and Property 2 is fault. Mr X provided a contact address when he sold property 2 in 2012 which should also have been linked to Property 1. But for this error the Council would have sent all bills and correspondence related to Property 1 to Mr X’s current address.
27. I recognise that Mr X did not provide a forwarding address when his tenants left or when he sold Property 1. Clearly this would have been beneficial but he had already provided the Council with his current address and received correspondence there.
28. There is no suggestion Mr X attempted to avoid his council tax liability. Mr X paid the outstanding council tax as soon as the bills were sent to his current address. Had the Council used Mr X’s current address at the outset there would have been no need for court action or the involvement of enforcement agents.
29. I consider the Council’s failure to suspend the bailiff action when Mr X paid the outstanding council tax is fault. The Council has apologised for this and the distress it caused and has refunded the bailiff’s fees.
30. The Council has also paid Mr X £100 in recognition of the distress and protracted nature of the issue. This is to be welcomed, but I do not consider it is sufficient to redress the injustice caused to Mr X.
31. Mr X was surprised and distressed to receive a visit from the bailiff when he understood the matter to be closed. He says he had to pay the bailiff’s fees as they were threatening to come in and take his television and charge additional fees. Mr X paid the fee in July 2022 and the Council did not refund it until November 2022. Mr X says the events have affected his sleep and he had to make several visits to the Council’s offices to try and resolve the matter.
32. Our guidance on remedies suggests payments for avoidable distress associated with unnecessary recovery action will usually fall in the modest range of £200 to £500. In these circumstances I consider a payment of £200 to be appropriate. This should take into account the £100 the Council has already paid Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X a further £100 in recognition of the distress he experienced as a result of the failure to link Mr X’s properties and ensure his current address was properly recorded.
34. The Council has also agreed to refund Mr X the court fee in the sum of £67.
35. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

36. The Council’s failure to link Mr X’s properties and ensure his current address was properly recorded is fault. As was the failure to suspend recovery action when Mr X paid the outstanding council tax. These faults have caused Mr X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman