Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her council tax account, particularly a visit to her home by its enforcement agent. Mrs X said the visit caused much distress. We found there was fault causing injustice. The action already taken by the Council, which included written apologies, correction of Mrs X’s council tax account and payment of £100 financial redress, suitably put matters right.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of her council tax account, particularly the visit of its enforcement agent to her home. Mrs X said the agent’s visit caused much distress. Mrs X wanted the Council to compensate her for what happened and review its council tax enforcement procedures. 

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. 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

4. I have:

• considered Mrs X’s written complaint and supporting papers;
• talked to Mrs X about the complaint;
• considered information from the Council about the complaint;
• shared Council information with Mrs X; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mrs X and the Council and considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. 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.
6. 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).
7. 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.
8. Once a council has a liability order it can take recovery action. For example, a council may ask an enforcement agent to visit a person’s property and seize goods to the value of the council tax debt.
9. 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 – an 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.

What happened

10. Mrs X’s property was occupied by a tenant and that tenant was paying council tax. The tenant moved out of the property and told the Council. The Council then sent a council tax bill for the property to Mrs X’s home address and addressed to her and another family member. The bill sought payment of council tax from the date the tenant moved out of the property and to the end of the council tax year. The bill included instalment payments.
11. Receiving no council tax instalment payments, the Council sent a reminder letter to Mrs X’s home address addressed to her and another family member. The letter gave Mrs X and the family member 14 days to pay the named instalments otherwise the whole balance on the earlier council tax bill would be payable.
12. More than 14 days passed without the Council receiving any council tax payments. The Council started legal action to secure a liability order and sent a court summons to Mrs X and another family member. The summons sought payment of the full council tax for the year and costs of £84.
13. A few days later, Mrs X made a council tax payment to the Council. The payment was not for the full council tax for the year but for the original missed instalment payments. The Council continued with its legal action and got a liability order, which included further costs of £46. The liability order recognised Mrs X had recently paid some council tax.
14. Around the same time, another tenant moved into Mrs X’s property and became responsible for paying the council tax. The new tenant contacted the Council and it issued further council tax bills. One bill went to the new tenant for payment of council tax from the date they moved into the property and to the end of the council tax year. The other bill was sent to Mrs X and another family member at their home address. This bill took account of the liability order, including the Council’s legal costs of £84 and £46, and the new tenant’s move into the property. This meant the amount payable by Mrs X and another family member following and under the liability order was reduced.
15. Mrs X and the family member did not pay the reduced council tax bill. The Council instructed enforcement agents to recover the outstanding council tax, which was subject to the earlier liability order. The agents sent a letter and notice of enforcement to Mrs X and the family member at their home address. The agents added their £75 fee to the debt and set a payment date to avoid further enforcement action. The agents’ letter set out payment options: they all sought payment to the agents, not to the Council.
16. A few days later, the Council received payment. The payment was for slightly more than the outstanding council tax and the agents’ compliance fee. The Council did not tell the agents it had received the payment.
17. After the agents’ payment date passed, they wrote again to Mrs X and the family member seeking payment within 7 days to avoid a home visit. The agents also said they messaged the family member two days later. Mrs X, knowing the debt had been paid to the Council, saw no need to contact the agents.
18. One weekend, several weeks later, an enforcement agent came to Mrs X’s home. The agent sought payment of the debt, and the added £235 enforcement stage fee. The agent’s body camera was not working. (The camera battery was not charged.) The visit led to police officers attending Mrs X’s home. The agent eventually left, being unable to verify what Mrs X and a family member said about payment of the debt. Mrs X contacted the Council about payment of the debt and to complain.
19. On Monday, the Council contacted the agents and confirmed payment of the debt, including costs, before the enforcement visit. The Council also apologised to Mrs X. It explained its failure to tell the agents about payment of the debt had led to the enforcement action continuing unnecessarily. The Council confirmed it had corrected its records and removed the agents £235 enforcement fee. The Council said it would also remove the agents £75 compliance fee. The Council refunded £75 plus the council tax overpayment. The Council also reviewed its procedures to try to prevent a repeat of what went wrong in this case.
20. Mrs X continued with her complaint saying the Council had not addressed the trauma and stress of the agent’s visit, which a neighbour had witnessed. The correspondence that followed included Mrs X’s and the Council’s differing accounts of what was said and happened during the agent’s visit. The Council also made a further payment of £25 to Mrs X in recognition of the distress caused by the unnecessary enforcement visit.

Consideration

21. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a Council decision to decide if it was wrong or ask if the Council could have done things differently or better. Instead, we look at the procedures the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those procedures correctly, we cannot question the Council’s decision. However, if we find evidence of fault in how the Council has applied those procedures, we consider if that fault has caused the complainant injustice that we ought to put right (see paragraph 2).
22. Here, the evidence showed the Council, at first, followed the correct procedures in billing and seeking to recover unpaid council tax from Mrs X. This included the Council instructing enforcement agents to recover unpaid council tax, including costs, once it held a liability order. The evidence also showed the Council’s enforcement agents, at the compliance stage, acted correctly too.
23. The fault, which was not in dispute, arose when Mrs X paid the council tax debt, albeit to the Council and not its enforcement agents. At that point, the Council failed to quickly update the enforcement agents about that payment. That was ‘fault’. Mrs X’s payment should have brought the council tax recovery procedure to an end. However, the enforcement agents did not know about the payment and continued with recovery action.
24. I recognised Mrs X saw no reason to contact the agents when they later sent a reminder for payment of the council tax debt. But, with neither the Council nor Mrs X telling the agents the debt was paid, an agent later visited Mrs X’s home. The Council accepted the visit was not necessary. I agreed: the enforcement action after payment of the debt was avoidable, but for the Council’s fault in failing to tell the agents the debt was paid. Mrs X described the impact of an agent’s visit. As the visit was avoidable, I found any distress it caused Mrs X was also avoidable. I therefore found the Council’s fault caused Mrs X injustice.
25. However, I could not resolve the differences between Mrs X and the Council about what happened during the visit. There was no body camera recording or other objective, independent and verifiable evidence before me about the visit. We are a publicly funded body and must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every question a complainant may have about what the Council did or arbitrate on the party’s differing views. And, here, I found no good reason or grounds to further investigate events during the agent’s visit being satisfied it was avoidable as was the resulting distress to Mrs X.
26. The key decision here was whether, in responding to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council suitably addressed the injustice she was caused by its ‘fault’. To put matters right, the Council had apologised to Mrs X, corrected the council tax account, and refunded the overpayment. It also explained the ‘human error’ which led to the ‘fault’ and paid Mrs X £100 financial redress. On balance, I found the action already taken by the Council provided proportionate, appropriate and reasonable redress for Mrs X.
27. The Council had also taken steps to prevent the ‘human error’ made in this case from arising in the future. It had also instructed its enforcement agents to only make home visits when an agent’s body camera was working. I therefore made no recommendations now for service improvements.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I completed my investigation, finding fault causing injustice, which the Council had already suitably put right.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman