Summary: Ms X complains about how the Council dealt with her council tax. The Council was at fault because it failed to consider whether it should make reasonable adjustments for Ms X. Although it did not affect the decision about Ms X’s liability for council tax, or the debt owed, fault by the Council caused her avoidable distress. The Council agreed to apologise, agree reasonable adjustments it will make for Ms X, and pay her a financial remedy. It will also issue reminders to its staff.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about how the Council dealt with her council tax from 2022, after she moved out of its area in 2021. Ms X says:
• she does not agree she is liable for the payment the Council is seeking from her;
• the Council has provided confusing information about her liability. It told her in late 2022, after she complained, that no further payment was due. A year later it then told her she still owed the money; and
• the method of debt recovery the Council proposed in late 2023 was not appropriate. It decided to instruct enforcement agents to recover the debt without properly considering whether Ms X and her husband were vulnerable people under its recovery policy. They are elderly and disabled and Ms X says the Council knew this.
2. Because of this, Ms X says both she and her husband were caused distress which worsened their existing physical and mental health conditions. She also says they experienced financial loss because she considers they have a debt they should not owe.
3. Ms X wants the Council to cancel the debt, apologise, and provide a financial remedy for the distress caused to her and her husband.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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

7. I considered:
• information provided by Ms X and her written response to my questions about the complaint;
• documentation and comments from the Council;
• relevant law and guidance; and
• the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Jurisdiction and Guidance on Remedies.
8. Ms X and the Council had opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

Council tax

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.
10. The council tax bill for the year is due on 1 April. A council will usually collect payment through monthly instalments. If the liable person misses any instalment, the council will send them 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).
11. To use the various powers available to it to recover unpaid council tax, a council must apply to a magistrate’s court for a liability order against those it believes are liable. Once a council has a liability order it can take recovery action.
12. A liability order gives a council the legal power to take enforcement action to collect the council tax and court costs owed. The most commonly used powers are asking for 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 enforcement agents. The council can decide which recovery method to use but it can only use one method for one liability order at one time.
13. A council may ask an enforcement agent to visit a person’s property and seize goods to the value of a council tax debt, if it has a liability order from the magistrates’ court.
14. Council tax reduction (CTR, also known as council tax support) is a discount, not a benefit. Councils can award discretionary CTR to reduce a claimant’s council tax, using their powers under S13A(1)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended). Each council will have its own scheme. Appeals about those decisions are to the Valuation Tribunal.

The Equality Act 2010 and reasonable adjustments

15. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
16. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act are: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation.
17. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
18. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

What happened

19. Ms X and her husband, Mr Y, lived in the Council’s area from 2020.
20. In May 2021 the Council wrote to Ms X and Mr Y with a reminder notice, as they had missed payment of their April and May council tax instalments. Mr Y rang and arranged payment. Shortly afterwards, the Council issued a 2021/2022 council tax bill explaining what Ms X and Mr Y would owe for the rest of the year.
21. In October 2021 Ms X and Mr Y moved out of their house as they planned to sell it. They moved to a different council’s area, but still owned the property in the Council’s area for another four months. Ms X said she did not receive any correspondence the Council sent to the property after she and Mr Y moved out in mid-October 2021. Ms X said she wrote to the Council the day before they moved out to tell it they were moving. The Council said it did not receive any letter. On the balance of probabilities, I decided the Council did not receive this letter, regardless of whether Ms X sent it.
22. A week after Ms X and Mr Y moved out of the property the Council sent a further reminder notice because they had not paid their October council tax instalment.
23. In November 2021, the Council had not received a response to its previous reminder notice and had now not received payment for October or November. It therefore sent a final notice asking Ms X and Mr Y to pay the rest of their council tax balance for the 2021/2022 year in full.
24. In early-January 2022, the Council had not heard anything further from Ms X and Mr Y. It sent them a court summons as it had applied to a magistrate’s court for a liability order to pursue recovery of the debt.
25. In late-January 2022, the case was heard at the magistrate’s court and the court granted a liability order. The Council sent notice of the liability order to Ms X and Mr Y.
26. In mid-February 2022, Ms X and Mr Y sold the house in the Council’s area. A month later, the Council received returned mail from the property which said Ms X and Mr Y no longer lived there. The mail returned was:
• the early-January 2022 magistrate’s court summons;
• a letter it had sent Ms X and Mr Y in mid-February 2022 asking them to return standard annual information about council tax reductions that may apply to them; and
• an annual council tax bill it had sent in early-March 2022 for the following 2022/2023 tax year.
27. Over the next seven months, the Council repeatedly carried out address tracing to find out Ms X and Mr Y’s new address so it could contact them. In late-October 2022 it found their address and sent them a 2021/2022 council tax bill. This bill said it was “already subject to recovery action and should be paid as previously notified”.
28. After Ms X received the 2021/2022 bill at her new address, she complained to the Council to query this. She did not think she should be liable for any further payments to the Council. The Council responded and explained to Ms X recovery action had already taken place. It asked her to provide information about when she left the property so it could decide if it had calculated the liability correctly. It also sent Ms X copies of all the previous council tax letters it had sent her, in response to a Subject Access Request she made with her complaint.
29. In December 2022, Ms X had provided the information the Council asked for, so it issued an adjusted 2021/2022 bill. It had reduced Ms X and Mr Y’s liability based on the information provided. This bill again said it was “already subject to recovery action and should be paid as previously notified”. The following day, the Council sent an adjusted 2022/2023 bill, showing the liability for that year as £0, because Ms X and Mr Y had sold the property before the 2022/2023 tax year. Ms X told us when she received these bills, she thought they were both for the 2021/2022 tax year. Therefore, when she received the second bill showing £0 liability, she thought the issue was resolved and she had no debt to repay.
30. A year later, in December 2023, the Council sent notification to Ms X and Mr Y that it planned to recover the 2021/2022 debt from them. It said if they did not pay the debt within 14 days it would instruct enforcement agents to visit their new address to recover the debt. Ms X complained again, and the Council paused recovery action while it investigated.
31. In its final response to Ms X’s complaint, the Council:
• accepted it may have been better to follow up the December 2022 adjusted bills with a separate letter or email to explain the changes, and apologised for this;
• accepted the December 2023 notification of recovery was upsetting for Ms X and Mr Y a year after their last correspondence with the Council. However, it said it was not at fault for taking the recovery action, and its position remained they were liable for the debt; and
• offered an assessment from a benefits assessor to see if it could reduce the liability further. Ms X said she would not be providing any further information to the Council. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. The Council paused all recovery action pending our investigation.

My findings

Application to the magistrate’s court for liability order

32. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
33. This means:
• we cannot decide points of law, or rule on the legal validity of a liability order. Ms X and Mr Y would need to go to court to challenge the liability order that is now in place; and
• I cannot investigate events from the point the Council issued the court summons, up to the court’s decision to issue the liability order. I can only look at how the Council followed its processes in billing and issuing reminders before it started court action, and in how it pursued recovery action once it had the liability order.

Council tax liability

34. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review 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 use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended).
35. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction. Ms X does not agree she is liable for the payment the Council is seeking from her. She has not appealed to the Valuation Tribunal, therefore I must consider whether it would be unreasonable to expect her to have used this right.
36. I consider it was reasonable for Ms X and Mr Y to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal, because:
• the Council sent them a 2021/2022 council tax bill in May 2021. This explained how to appeal to the Council if they thought their liability was wrong, following which they could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal if unsuccessful;
• the reminder notices sent in October and November 2021 also invited Ms X and Mr Y to contact the Council with any queries. Although the Council sent these after Ms X and Mr Y moved out of the property, they still owned and had access to it until mid-February 2022. These reminder notices were never returned to the Council as undelivered;
• the Council sent the court summons, and then the notice of liability order, in January 2022, at which point Ms X and Mr Y still could have contacted the Council to contest their liability, and then appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. On the balance of probabilities, I consider these also arrived when Ms X and Ms Y still owned and had access to the property.
37. Ms X told us she does not feel an appeal to the Tribunal is an option for her and Mr Y, because of their disabilities and needs for reasonable adjustments. She said in April 2023, in council tax proceedings with a different council where they now live, they received another court summons for unpaid council tax. In that other case, she says she and Mr Y could not attend the court hearing because the court did not make reasonable adjustments they asked for. I accept this experience has now affected Ms X’s trust that reasonable adjustments will be made for her. However, I do not consider this is relevant to whether she could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal about liability decisions made by her previous council in 2021 and 2022. This is because:
• any negative experience with a magistrate’s court in April 2023 came after the period Ms X should have appealed in the events I am considering; and
• the Valuation Tribunal is a separate body to the magistrate’s court, with separate processes in place. I consider it reasonable to expect Ms X could have made an appeal to the Tribunal, and asked for reasonable adjustments if she needed them.
38. Therefore, I have not investigated Ms X’s complaint about whether she is liable for the payment the Council is seeking from her. The Valuation Tribunal is an independent expert body whose decisions are binding on the Council. It would be reasonable to make an appeal to the Tribunal in this case.

Decision to pursue debt recovery in December 2023

39. When the Council issued the December 2022 adjusted bills, the 2021/2022 bill said it was “already subject to recovery action and should be paid as previously notified”. At this stage the Council had already got a liability order for the debt in January 2022 and so was entitled to pursue recovery action. As previously explained, the Ombudsman cannot question the validity of the liability order.
40. After Ms X and Mr Y did not pay the December 2022 bill, there was then a gap of a year before the Council wrote to them with notice that it planned to start recovery action. Although I understand why this was upsetting for Ms X and Mr Y a year after their last correspondence with the Council, it was not fault. The Council is entitled to pursue recovery action once it has a liability order and there is no time limit for this.

Consideration of Ms X and Mr Y as vulnerable

41. Ms X said the Council’s decision to pursue the debt via enforcement agents was not appropriate. She said it did not properly consider whether she and Mr Y were vulnerable people under its recovery policy.
42. The Council’s debt recovery policy sets out groups of people who may be considered vulnerable and how it will approach debt recovery. This says the cause of vulnerability may be permanent or temporary and the degree of vulnerability will vary widely. The Council says it may agree someone is vulnerable in terms of council tax debt if:
• they fall into one of the groups specified in its policy; and
• that vulnerability means they are unable to manage their financial affairs, or to understand the recovery process or consequences if the debt remains unpaid.
43. The groups of people specified as potentially vulnerable in the Council’s policy include the following:
• People with a physical and/or sensory impairment, where their disability prevents them from managing their financial affairs effectively and they need support.
• People with mental health needs, where they are unable to protect themselves from harm or abuse and/or unable to manage their financial affairs effectively without support.
• Those who are elderly, confused, or frail, where they are ill and living on a limited income, and/or have recently suffered the death of a partner who has previously managed their family finances.
• People with a serious illness. This could be someone who is terminally ill, or has a close family member who is terminally ill, and this affects their ability to manage their financial affairs effectively and they need support.
44. When the Council is satisfied a debtor is vulnerable, it says alternative affordable and sustainable payment arrangements will be made with the debtor or their representative. Other examples of adjustments to the normal recovery procedures may include:
• helping someone to claim benefits, discounts or other available financial support;
• agreeing for the debt to be paid over a longer period to clear the arrears;
• making referrals to specialist independent debt advisors; or
• providing information in accessible formats.
45. The information the Council held about Ms X and Mr Y’s needs during the period I considered was as follows.
• June 2020 – When Ms X first had contact with the Council about her council tax account, she said she found it difficult to process information. She therefore asked the Council to speak to a representative acting on her behalf on this occasion. The representative said Ms X had health conditions affecting her mobility and cognition. The Council then granted a reduction in Ms X and Mr Y’s council tax bill due to disability.
• November 2022 – When Ms X received a bill at her new address and so complained, she told the Council both she and Mr Y had disabilities and were vulnerable. She asked it to make reasonable adjustments including “time adjustments”.
• December 2023 – When Ms X received notification the Council would begin recovery action and complained again, she told the Council both she and Mr Y were elderly, vulnerable, and had “severe life limiting conditions”. In later correspondence about the complaint, she said she had “memory problems”.
46. It is clear the Council held information which suggested Ms X and Mr Y fell within the groups defined within its policy as potentially vulnerable. However, to consider them vulnerable under its policy, the Council would also need to have decided any vulnerability meant they were “unable to manage their financial affairs, or understand the recovery process or consequences if the debt remains unpaid”.
47. I find the Council did not properly consider whether Ms X and Mr Y were vulnerable people under its debt recovery policy, and whether this meant it should handle the debt recovery process any differently. It should have considered this, and recorded this consideration, based on the information it held about them at the time. Its failure to do so was fault.
48. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, what the Council would have decided if it had properly considered this. However, even if the Council had decided Ms X and Mr Y were vulnerable under its policy, I do not consider that would have significantly changed things for them in this case. Being a vulnerable debtor does not change someone’s liability to pay the debt, it only changes how the debt is recovered. Even if the Council had chosen a different recovery method, or payment schedule, I consider Ms X would still have disputed her liability for the debt. It is my view that she would have decided not to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal, and then brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, at the same point. Ms X still disputes she is liable for the debt and at the time of my decision has not paid the debt or had enforcement action taken against her. The Council paused the debt recovery process as soon as she made her complaint.

The Equality Act and reasonable adjustments

49. I consider the Council failed to properly take account of its duties under the Equality Act to Ms X and Mr Y, as people who are disabled. This is because:
• there was no evidence the Council asked Ms X if she needed reasonable adjustments to how it communicated with her, despite being aware from June 2020 that she had a disability affecting her cognition. It did not consider this for Mr Y either, despite being aware he had disabilities from November 2022. This was fault; and
• the Council did not consider or respond to Ms X’s request for “time adjustments” when she complained in November 2022. This was fault.
50. Because of this, the Council did not communicate with Ms X in the way she needed it to, which caused her distress. The Council should remedy the injustice caused. However, I do not consider this caused Mr Y a significant injustice because since the Council became aware he is disabled, all communication has been via Ms X.
51. I also considered Ms X’s comments, as described at paragraph 29, that she misunderstood the bills the Council sent her in December 2022 and therefore thought the debt was cleared. The 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 bills Ms X received on consecutive days were clearly labelled as covering different liability periods. However, Ms X has a disability which affects her cognition. If the Council had properly considered whether it should provide reasonable adjustments for Ms X before it sent the December 2022 bills, it may have communicated or explained this differently. However, again, I do not consider this would have changed things significantly for Ms X. At the time of my decision, she still disputes she is liable for the debt. If the Council had communicated the December 2022 bills differently, I still consider she would have disagreed with the decision, decided not to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal, and then brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. This may have happened sooner if Ms X had understood the December 2022 communications, as she then would have disputed the debt sooner, but ultimately this has not caused her a significant injustice. Also, Ms X has had the benefit of the disputed monies during this time.

Back to top

Agreed action

52. Within one month of our final decision the Council will:
1. agree, in consultation with Ms X, any reasonable adjustments it will provide to her in how it communicates with her about this outstanding issue and any recovery action going forward;
2. properly consider whether Ms X and Mr Y are vulnerable people under its debt recovery policy and whether it should make any changes to the debt recovery process as a result. It should record this consideration;
3. apologise to Ms X for the faults I have identified and the impact of those faults. We publish Guidance on Remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance when making its apology; and
4. make a symbolic payment of £100 to recognise the distress caused by its failure to properly consider its reasonable adjustment duties to Ms X. (Please note: this is a separate issue to any council tax debt owed and so should not be offset against existing debt).
53. Within three months of our final decision the Council will share a copy of our final decision with all staff within its council tax, debt recovery, and complaints services. It will remind them of:
1. the Council’s duties under the Equality Act 2010, including the reasonable adjustment duty; and
2. what the Council’s debt recovery policy says about vulnerable people, when this should be considered, and how any considerations should be recorded.
54. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

55. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council which caused avoidable distress for Ms X. The Council agreed to our recommendations to remedy this injustice and issue reminders to its staff.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman