Summary: Mr X complained the Council sent council tax bills and correspondence to an incorrect address and wrongly obtained a liability order against him. The Council’s errors in updating Mr X’s contact details and in sending bills and court summons to an unrelated address and obtaining a liability order are fault. As is the Council’s failure to issue new bills to Mr X’s home address in November 2023 and to instead issue a further summons. These faults have caused Mr X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X complained the Council sent council tax bills and correspondence to an incorrect address and wrongly issued court summonses and obtained a liability order against him. He complains the Council has not explained how this error happened or taken appropriate action to rectify the errors.
2. Mr X complains the Council failed to respond to his correspondence or address his concerns.

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 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)
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. When Mr X’s tenants moved out in January 2023 the letting agent asked the Council to send all council tax charges and correspondence to Mr X’s home address, at Property 2.
7. The Council instead entered Mr X’s previous home address onto its system. When the Council sent a council bill to Mr X’s previous address it was returned as “addressee gone away” and advised of his address at Property 2. The Council says it updated Mr X’s contact address, but this was again done incorrectly.
8. Over the following months the Council sent bills and correspondence regarding the council tax arrears to this incorrect address. It also issued two summons, one for £100.13 in respect of council tax for the year 2022–2023 and a second for £915.40, the full amount of council tax due for 2023- 2024. The Council then obtained a liability order in respect of the 2022- 2023 arrears.
9. The Council’s records show it send a revised bill in early July 2023 for the period 1 April to 8 June 2023. The records also show that all correspondence sent to the incorrect address from late June 2023 onwards was returned to the Council. This included further bills, reminders, a summons warning, and a notice of enforcement.
10. The Council did not update Mr X’s home address correctly until late October 2023. On 9 November 2023 the Council then wrote to Mr X at Property 2 with a court summons for council tax of £172.57 and costs of £62.50. Mr X paid the total sum of £235.07 to avoid further action. He wrote to the Council explaining he had not received a council tax bill for Property 1 since the tenants left and the property was put up for sale. Mr X asked for a breakdown of the £172.57 and disputed his liability for any costs which he asked the Council to refund.
11. Although the Council acknowledged Mr X’s email it did not respond. However on 23 November 2023 the Council sent Mr X a payment arrangement for council tax for Property 1 of £237.63, which was due by 18 December 2023. Mr X questioned this with the Council as there was no breakdown of the sum requested or mention of the £235.07 he had recently paid.
12. On 28 November 2023 the Council confirmed it had received Mr X’s payment of £235.07. It explained the sum of £172.57 was for council tax the period 1 April to 8 June 2023 and £62.50 was the summons cost. The Council confirmed it had removed the summons and costs from Mr X’s account as a gesture of good will.
13. In addition the Council advised Mr X there was an outstanding balance of £237.63 for the year 2022/ 2023. This was made up of council tax of £100.13 for the period 18 January to 31 March 2023, a summons fee of £62.50 and compliance costs of £75. Taking into account Mr X’s recent payment and the removal of the summons cost this left a balance of £175.13 to be paid.
14. Mr X was not happy with the Council’s response and asked for the matter to be treated as a formal complaint. In response the Council accepted it had not sent the relevant notifications to Mr X’s correct address and confirmed it had now withdrawn all recovery fees and costs incurred on Mr X’s account. It apologised for any distress caused.
15. The Council also confirmed that these updates left a balance of £37.63 on Mr X’s account in respect of council tax for the period 19 January to 8 June 2023. It issued a bill for £37.63 to Mr X at Property 2 on 15 December 2023.
16. Mr X did not consider the Council’s response addressed his concerns and asked for his complaint to be considered further. He questioned why the Council would correct his contact address on 29 October 2023 and then send a Magistrate’s court summons 11 days later. Mr X asserted the Council would have been aware the previous correspondence had been sent to the wrong address and would need to be resent before issuing a summons.
17. In addition Mr X noted he had not received a breakdown of the amounts claimed and had only received one summons although the Council’s correspondence indicated there were two. He questioned the outstanding charge and asked why he had not received a copy of the second summons but had been charged for the cost and a compliance fee. He was concerned that the summons obtained against him would adversely affect his credit rating. Mr X asked the Council to refund the £235.07 he had paid to recognise the distress and inconvenience he had experienced.
18. The Council responded in late January 2024 and apologised for the delay. It acknowledged the Council was aware of Mr X’s address in January 2023 and that its system was not updated at that time. It also acknowledged that when it became aware bills and correspondence had been sent to the wrong address, it should have issued new bills and allowed time for them to be paid before taking recovery action.
19. The Council accepted there were missed opportunities to identify the errors earlier and confirmed all recovery action and costs had been withdrawn. It again apologised for the frustration and inconvenience caused. The Council also apologised for any confusion caused by its correspondence.
20. In addition the Council provided a breakdown of the council tax charges for the periods 18 January to 31 March 2023 and 1 April to 8 June 2023. It confirmed the sum of £37.63 remained outstanding and payable for the period 18 January to 31 March 2023.
21. In relation to Mr X’s concerns about his credit rating, the Council confirmed information on council tax payments is not shared with credit reference agencies.
22. The Council told Mr X it could not refund the £235.07 he had paid, but instead offered to pay £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience he had experienced.
23. Mr X remains unhappy with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. He remains concerned the Council has not provided a full explanation for what has happened. He questions why the Council issued a summons against him despite knowing all bills and correspondence had been sent to an incorrect address. And is concerned that it obtained a liability order against him in the Magistrate’s court based on documentation sent to the wrong address. Mr X would like the liability order to be annulled.
24. In addition Mr X is concerned that correspondence stating he was in default of council tax payments and facing legal action was sent to an incorrect address. He does not know the address used and feels he may have been defamed.
25. In response to my enquiries the Council says the bill issued to Mr X’s previous address was returned in February 2023 with a hand written note of Mr X’s current address. It says an officer misread the address which led to an incorrect address being added to the account in error. The Council has confirmed Mr X's address was correctly updated on 29 October 2023.
26. The Council says individual conversations and training have taken place with the officers concerned and wider training and guidance has been provided to all team members. This includes the distribution of a “Gone Away Procedure note”. Regular quality assurance and performance monitoring is also in place for all team members.
27. The Council also acknowledges that correspondence issued to the incorrect address should have been removed and a new bill issued. As this was not done a summons was automatically issued by the system on 7 November 2023. The Council has reiterated that the summons notice and associated costs were withdrawn from Mr X’s account in December 2023. It says it is making arrangements with the court to have the liability order set aside.

Analysis

28. The Council’s failure to correctly update Mr X’s contact details is fault. The Council had Mr X’s home address in January 2023 and this should have been added to his account. The Council instead added Mr X’s previous home address and then failed to correct this error when correspondence was returned. I recognise the note confirming Mr X’s home address is hand written but the writing is legible and clearly sets out Mr X’s address and postcode. The address added to Mr X’s account is entirely different and errors of this nature are unacceptable.
29. But for the Council’s errors it would have sent all bills and correspondence related to Property 1 to Mr X’s home address. There is no suggestion Mr X attempted to avoid his council tax liability. Mr X paid the outstanding council tax as soon as he received notification of the charges. Had the Council used Mr X’s current address at the outset there would have been no need for court action or recovery action.
30. I consider the Council’s failure to issue new bills to Mr X’s home address in November 2023 and to instead issue a further summons is also fault. The Council has apologised for this and removed the summons fees and recovery costs from Mr X’s account.
31. Mr X is concerned about the effect of the liability order on his credit rating. Liability orders are granted by a Magistrate’s court and allow councils to employ enforcement agents to collect a debt. They are not a County Court judgement and do not affect credit ratings.
32. Councils can apply to the Magistrate’s court to rescind a liability order which was obtained inappropriately. I consider this would be appropriate in this instance. The Council has confirmed it has contacted the court to have the liability order set aside. I would expect the Council to keep Mr X updated and advise him when the liability order has been set aside.
33. Mr X is also concerned about a data breach when the Council wrote to him at an incorrect address, thereby sharing his confidential data. Complaints about data breaches are a matter for the Information Commisioner’s Officer rather than the Ombudsman.
34. Having identified fault I must consider whether this has caused Mr X a significant injustice. The Council has removed the summons and enforcement costs from Mr X’s account so there is no financial loss to Mr X as a result of the Council’s errors.
35. However he has experienced distress and frustration as a result of the Council’s errors and the lack of clarity and confusion in its correspondence. He is also concerned that the residents at the incorrect address received and may have been privy to correspondence about legal action and enforcement against him. Mr X says the Council has not recognised or taken account of the stress this has caused him given his age and medical condition.
36. The Council has offered to pay Mr X £100 in recognition of the distress and protracted nature of the issue. This is to be welcomed but I consider an increased payment to be appropriate in this instance.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £200 to recognise the distress and frustration the fault identified above has caused him. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
38. 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

39. The Council’s errors in updating Mr X’s contact details and in sending bills and court summons to an unrelated address and obtaining a liability order are fault. As is the Council’s failure to issue new bills to Mr X’s home address in November 2023 and to instead issue a further summons. These faults have caused Mr X an injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman