Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of an enforcement agent. She says they threatened to remove her property despite providing evidence her ex-partner no longer lived in the property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains an enforcement agent threatened to remove her property despite providing evidence her ex-partner no longer lived in the property. She said she felt forced to take out a loan to pay the enforcement agent to leave her property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X’s ex-partner, Mr Z, had a council tax debt. The Council obtained a liability order and instructed an enforcement agency to collect the debt. Miss X lives in Property 1.
6. In August 2023, the enforcement agents ran a search which listed Mr Z’s address as Property 1. The enforcement agents sent a notice of enforcement to the address. The agents said they received no response or communication following the notice.
7. An enforcement agent visited the property in October 2023. On the day, the agent confirmed with Miss X that Mr Z was still on the lease for Property 1. The agent also saw an opened letter that was addressed to Mr Z on the dining table. The agent confirmed this was sufficient evidence for them to hold a reasonable belief that Mr Z lived in the property and that there were goods belonging to Mr Z in the property. The agent therefore informed Miss X they were entitled to search for and take control of goods.
8. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because there was sufficient evidence available for the enforcement agent to form a reasonably held belief that Mr Z lived in the property, and subsequently, that there were goods belonging to Mr Z in the property. The agent was therefore entitled to inform Miss X they would take control of goods until the debt was paid.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman