Summary: Miss X complained about the actions of enforcement agents acting on behalf of the Council to collect a council tax debt. The Council commissioned enforcement agents were not at fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the enforcement agents acting on behalf of the Council acted unfairly when they visited her property for a £37 council tax debt which she did not know was still outstanding, and for a compliance fee she was not made aware of. This visit added £235 to the debt causing Miss X distress and financial difficulties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended). In this case the enforcement agents are acting on behalf of the Council in collecting a council tax debt.
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 the information provided by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her on the telephone.
6. I have considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and the information provided by the enforcement agents, acting on the Council’s behalf.
7. I gave Miss X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

8. 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. The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and associated regulations cover the way enforcement agents may recover debts.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (“the Act”) sets out a clear procedure for how enforcement agents may take control of goods.
12. To take control of goods, an enforcement agent must do one of the following:
• secure the goods on the premises on which they find them;
• if they find goods on a highway, secure them on the highway; either where they find them or within a reasonable distance;
• remove goods and secure them elsewhere;
• enter into a controlled goods agreement with the debtor. This allows the debtor to keep the goods, acknowledges the enforcement agent is taking control of them and the debtor agrees not to remove or dispose of them before the debt is paid.
13. The ‘Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014’ sets out the fees an enforcement agent can charge when recovering debt and the three stages they must follow:
• The Compliance Stage – a enforcement agent must issue a notice of enforcement. The fee for this stage is £75.
• The Enforcement Stage – this stage starts once an enforcement agent has made a first visit. This must be at least seven clear days after sending the notice of enforcement. At this visit the agent can take control of goods. The fee for this stage is £235. If the outstanding debts are more than £1,500, the agent can charge a further 7.5% of the amount outstanding over £1,500.
• The Sale or Disposal Stage – this stage starts once an enforcement agent has taken control of the goods. They must allow seven clear days between the removal of goods and their sale. In this time an agent must value the goods and send a copy of the valuation to the debtor. The fee for this stage is £110.
14. The government has published guidance entitled ‘Guidance to local councils on good practice in the collection of council tax arrears’. The guidance says councils must ensure enforcement agents provide clear and accurate information about costs to the bill payer, including a breakdown of costs, outlining how much has been charged for the enforcement agent’s action.

What happened

15. Miss X did not pay all her council tax in 2022/23. The Council obtained a liability order in February 2023 and passed the debt to the enforcement agents in June 2023.
16. In mid-June 2023 the enforcement agents sent Miss X a letter and notice of enforcement. The letter stated the enforcement process had commenced. It stated Miss X owed £397.38 and she should pay £37.38 by 20 June 2023 followed by 10 weekly payments of £36. The notice of enforcement set out that Miss X owed £322.38 to the Council plus a compliance fee of £75. It set out the fees and charges Miss X could incur if she did not pay the debt. It explained that if Miss X did not pay or agree a payment arrangement by 21 June an enforcement agent would visit and might seize her belongings. These belongings might then be sold to pay the money she owed. It said these actions would increase the costs of enforcement and these costs would be added to the amount already owed.
17. On 21 June Miss X contacted the enforcement agents to agree an arrangement to pay. The enforcement agents say they set a three-month arrangement of £50 a month. The enforcement agents say they asked Miss X to provide them with proof of her benefits before the arrangement ended and to ring the office before the arrangement ended on 12 August to make a further arrangement.
18. On 21 June Miss X messaged the enforcement agents with evidence of her benefits. She paid £17.38 that day.
19. On 3 July 2023 the enforcement agents wrote to Miss X. The letter said Miss X had failed to contact the office to make payment. It said she needed to pay £380 within seven days or contact the office to enter an arrangement to pay. Miss X says she did not receive this letter.
20. Miss X contacted the enforcement agents on 6 July to advise she had provided proof of her benefits. The enforcement agents said they had not received this and asked her to re-send it. Miss X re-sent proof of her benefits.
21. On 12 July Miss X paid £50. On 12 August she paid a further £50 which did not clear her account immediately and so the enforcement agents did not receive it until 14 August.
22. On 17 August the enforcement agents wrote to Miss X to say she had broken the temporary arrangement as she had failed to make payments on the required dates, so the arrangement was cancelled. They told her £280 was now due. The letter said she should pay in seven days or contact the office and they would consider whether to make another arrangement. The letter explained if she failed to pay or make an arrangement, further action would be taken and if necessary, the enforcement agents would take control of her goods.
23. Miss X contacted the enforcement agents on 21 August. She was unhappy about the letter as she had made the payments. The enforcement agents say they sent the letter as Miss X had not contacted the office by 12 August to agree a further arrangement. The enforcement agents agreed a further arrangement to pay £56 by 12 September followed by four monthly payments of £56. They asked Miss X for proof she still received benefits. Miss X made payments in September, October and November 2023.
24. In early January 2024 an enforcement agent visited Miss X as she had not complied with the arrangement and had not made contact. The enforcement agent completed a controlled goods agreement, listing Miss X’s goods, which Miss X signed. This set out the original debt of £322.38 plus the compliance fee of £75 and enforcement fee of £235. The agreement stated Miss X had paid £285.38 so Miss X now owed £347. It set out an arrangement for Miss X to pay £43 by 12 January 2024 followed by eight monthly payments of £38 to clear the debt.
25. The next day Miss X called the enforcement agents to say they had acted illegally so she would not be making any more payments. She followed this up with an email saying the enforcement agents did not give seven days notice of the visit or any correspondence citing what she owed before the visit. She said the enforcement agent did not clearly explain what she owed, and she only realised after she read the agreement when they left.
26. Miss X called the enforcement agents on 15 January. The enforcement agents say Miss X said they had acted illegally and she would be complaining. Miss X says when she spoke with the enforcement agents they agreed to remove the enforcement fee from her account.
27. The enforcement agents sent a complaint response to Miss X the next day. This said the enforcement agent who visited explained Miss X had defaulted on the arrangement and had not made any payments between November 2023 and January 2024. The response said the enforcement agents had sent an enforcement notice in June 2023 and had given additional time and sent a pre-enforcement visit notice on 3 July 2023. They had made an arrangement which Miss X defaulted on and then made a temporary arrangement. They said Miss X had not made a further arrangement and action would continue.
28. Miss X responded that she would pay £37 (which was the amount left owing from the original council tax debt without costs) and that she considered the controlled goods agreement void as the enforcement agent had mis-spelt her name.
29. The enforcement agents responded and apologised for the misspelling but said this did not make the agreement void. They said she needed to pay £44 to bring the account up to date. They said there would be no further charges if she stuck to the agreement. Miss X remained unhappy. She said she did not receive the letter of 3 July and that the letter of 17 August 2023 saying she broke the agreement was wrong as she had made the payments. She said when she spoke on the phone to the enforcement agents, they agreed to clear the enforcement fee from the account.
30. The enforcement agents responded to Miss X in late January. They again apologised for the misspelling of her name and said this was a simple spelling error which did not make the agreement void. They said the notice of enforcement was the only legal notice they had to send. They said they had given her extra time and if she did not receive the letter of 3 July she should contact the Royal Mail. They said Miss X needed to make her next payment by 12 February 2024 and the outstanding balance of £310 needed to be paid in full.
31. Miss X responded that she had not received the letter of 3 July and she had not broken the temporary arrangement. She said the enforcement agents refused to explain the fees and charges. She reiterated the enforcement agents had agreed to remove the enforcement fee when she spoke on the phone.
32. In February 2024 a representative wrote to the enforcement agents on Miss X’s behalf. They said Miss X’s main argument was the enforcement fee of £235. They said the enforcement agent who visited did not go through the controlled goods agreement and after they left, Miss X realised she only owed £37 from the original debt. She said she would not have signed it had she known. They said Miss X agreed to pay the balance which she believed to be £37. The representative said Miss X rang the enforcement agents on 15 January and they agreed to remove the enforcement fee leaving £37 plus the compliance fee (£75). Following this the enforcement agents’ complaints department wrote and said this was incorrect and they reinstated the enforcement fee. The representative said Miss X was willing to pay the compliance fee to end the matter.
33. The enforcement agents responded and explained the action they had taken. They explained the enforcement agent attended in January at which point they added the enforcement fee to the account and agreed an arrangement. They said they had enforced the debt correctly and never advised they would remove the enforcement fee. In February 2024 Miss X paid £75 to the enforcement agents, leaving a debt of £235.
34. Miss X remained unhappy and complained to the Council. It advised her to contact the enforcement agents direct. Miss X then complained to us.

Findings

35. The Council had a liability order so it could ask the enforcement agents to recover the debt. Once the Council passed the debt to the enforcement agents, the enforcement agents were entitled to charge the compliance fee of £75 and were not at fault for doing so.
36. Before taking control of goods an enforcement agent must issue a notice of enforcement at least seven clear days beforehand. The enforcement agents issued a letter and notice of enforcement to Miss X in June 2023. This was seven months before they visited her. This clearly explained the debt she owed and the £75 compliance fee she had incurred. On receipt of this, Miss X contacted the enforcement agents and agreed an arrangement to pay the debt. Miss X says she only received the covering letter, and the notice of enforcement was not enclosed. The enforcement agents have provided me with a copy of the enforcement notice which it says was enclosed with the letter and the letter states ‘full details are given in the enclosed statutory enforcement notice’. If Miss X did not receive the notice, it was open to her to raise it at that time.
37. Miss X made a payment in late June 2023. The enforcement agents wrote to Miss X on 3 July 2023 with a letter entitled ‘notice prior to enforcement visit’. Miss X says she never received this letter. I cannot hold the enforcement agent responsible if they sent a letter, but she has not received it. The letter said Miss X had failed to contact the office to make payment. However, Miss X had called the enforcement agents, had provided proof of her benefits and had made some payments. It is unclear why the enforcement agents issued this letter although it appears there may have been some confusion between the enforcement agents and Miss X about what she was expected to pay.
38. Miss X made further payments in July and August 2023. However, the enforcement agents received the August payment on 14 August when it was due by 12 August. In addition, Miss X did not contact the enforcement agents prior to 12 August to make another payment arrangement. The enforcement agents therefore wrote to Miss X to say she had broken the arrangement and if she failed to contact them, they would take further action. Miss X was unhappy with this letter but it was not fault for the enforcement agents to have sent it. In any case, the enforcement agents agreed a further payment arrangement with Miss X and this letter did not lead to any further charges at this point. So this did not cause a significant injustice.
39. Following this letter, the enforcement agents asked Miss X to make five payments of £56 and she made three. This meant Miss X still owed £112. Although Miss X only owed £37 from the initial debt, she also owed the compliance fee of £75 which was properly incurred and had to be paid. There is no record to show Miss X made any contact with the enforcement agents after the payment she made in November 2023. Miss X may have believed she had cleared the debt but that was not the case.
40. As Miss X still owed £112 (£37 of the original debt plus a £75 compliance fee) the enforcement agents were not at fault for visiting Miss X. The visit meant the debt recovery had moved on to the enforcement stage which incurred a further fee of £235. The enforcement agents charged this fee in line with the legislation and were not at fault. Miss X says the enforcement agent who visited did not explain the debt or how much she owed. The enforcement agents say their notes record the enforcement agent explained Miss X had defaulted on the arrangement and she had not made a payment since November 2023. Due to the passage of time, the body camera footage of the visit is no longer available so I cannot now establish exactly what was discussed. However, the controlled goods agreement, which Miss X signed, sets out the amount owed, the amount already paid, the fees incurred and sets out an arrangement to pay the remaining debt. Miss X says she did not see the front of the agreement before signing it but it was open to her to do so. There is no evidence to show the enforcement agent who visited was at fault.
41. Miss X says the enforcement agent did not show their ID. In its complaint response to Miss X the enforcement agents said they had reviewed the camera footage which showed the enforcement agent joked about the photo on their ID. I have not seen the footage, however, on balance, given the detail in the complaint response I am satisfied the enforcement agent had ID.
42. Miss X says she would not have signed the agreement had she realised only £37 of the original debt remained. However, the fees the enforcement agents charged were correctly incurred, in line with the legislation and so were part of the debt.
43. Miss X says when she spoke to the enforcement agents in January 2024, they agreed to remove the enforcement fee off the account. The enforcement agents noted the call and that Miss X said they had acted illegally and that she had made a complaint about this. They deny agreeing to remove the enforcement fee during this call. I do not have the call recording so I cannot now establish exactly what was said in that telephone call. However, the enforcement agents were entitled to charge the enforcement fee, so it is not fault for them to decide not to remove it.
44. Miss X’s name was misspelt on the controlled goods agreement so she considers it should be void. The enforcement agents explained this was a simple spelling mistake. If Miss X believes this makes the agreement is void, that is a matter best determined by the courts not the Ombudsman. We cannot make a definitive finding on this matter.
45. The enforcement agents responded to Miss X’s complaints and the points she and her representative raised in a detailed and timely manner. When Miss X complained to the Council it referred Miss X back to the enforcement agents. Given the enforcement agents had already responded to Miss X’s complaint in detail it would have been good practice for the Council to have considered her complaint and provided its own response, but given the detailed responses from the enforcement agents, its response in this instance was not fault.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I have completed my investigation. The Council and the enforcement agents acting on its behalf were not at fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman