Summary: Mr X complained the Council instructed enforcement agents who wrongly linked him to a debt he did not owe and sent an agent to his home to demand payment. We found the enforcement agency’s actions in linking Mr X to the debt and in requiring payment from him are fault. This faut has caused Mr X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X complained the Council instructed enforcement agents who wrongly linked him to a debt he did not owe and sent an agent to his home to demand payment.

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, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), 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;
• sent a statement setting out my draft decision to Mr X and the Council and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X lives with his family at Property A. On 4 June 2024 an enforcement agent visited Mr X’s home, asking for him. Mr X was not at home at the time so he telephoned the enforcement agent who told him they had visited to collect outstanding council tax for Property B.
7. Mr X says that although he told the enforcement agent he had no connection to property B they insisted he pay the outstanding balance of £1,274.98. He asked the agent how he had been linked to the council tax debt and says the agent told him the Council had provided his details.
8. Property B is owned by Mr X’s brother, Mr Y. Mr X says Mr Y agreed to pay the debt so he asked the enforcement agent to return the following day to take the payment.
9. Mr X also contacted the Council’s council tax service to clarify how he had been connected to the council tax account for Property B. He says he experienced significant difficulty in speaking to anyone as the system repeatedly disconnected his calls. When he spoke to an officer he says they confirmed Mr X did not owe any money and was not linked to Property B. The officer said they would email their manager to stop the enforcement action.
10. Mr X then submitted a formal complaint to the Council. He considered there had been a breach of his personal information. The enforcement agent had told him the Council had provided his name, date of birth, address, and telephone number. He had never lived at or been responsible for Property B and questioned how he could be linked to this address.
11. Mr X told the Council Property B was owned by his brother Mr Y who lives at the property. It was previously jointly owned by Mr Y and another brother, Mr Z who now lives elsewhere.
12. He asked the Council and the enforcement company to confirm what personal information it held about him, and for his to be deleted.
13. The enforcement agent telephoned Mr X early on 5 June 2024 to advise they had received a call from the Council but would still be visiting to collect payment. As Mr Y’s bank card was declined Mr X says he felt he had no choice and had to make the payment.
14. Mr X says the enforcement agent was rude and aggressive towards him and threatened to charge an extra fee for their visit.
15. Having made the payment Mr X then contacted the enforcement agency to complain. Mr X says the agency had initially told him the Council had passed them a name and Property A’s address. This was not correct, the agency had carried out checks and identified Mr X, when the debt was in fact owed by Mr Z, as the previous account holder. Mr X highlighted that their names were similar but spelt differently and asserted the enforcement agency should have checked this information.
16. He asked for the matter to be investigated so that these types of errors were not made. Mr X said the experience had brought shame on him and his family.
17. Mr X also contacted the Council again. He was told his complaint would be forwarded to the relevant team. Mr X contacted the Council again on 12 June 2024 to chase a response. The following day he received a call from a council officer assuring him they would contact the enforcement agents and resolve the matter.
18. The enforcement agency responded to Mr X’s complaints on 14 June 2024. It noted Mr X was concerned:
• the enforcement agency and the Council had breached data protection;
• the enforcement agency’s tracing service had provided Mr X’s details erroneously;
• the enforcement agency held data on Mr X which he wanted deleted;
• the professionalism of the enforcement agent
• the professionalism of the customer service agents and the information he was provided
• the effect on his credit history.
19. The response addressed each in turn. It confirmed data protection legislation permitted the transfer of data to fulfil a contract and they did not need Mr X’s consent.
20. The agency also explained the trace to locate the customer named by the Council identified Property A as an alternative contact address. They wrote to this address to establish contact. As there was no response the enforcement agent attended and hand delivered the Notice of Attendance. It said it was regrettable that an error took place with Mr X’s address details being incorrectly supplied.
21. In relation to the actions of the enforcement agent, it said it had reviewed the body worn camera footage of the visit on 5 June and was satisfied the agent acted in accordance with their lawful duties. The agent had explained why the camera must be turned off to process payments and there was no other footage available to determine any wrong doing after this point.
22. The enforcement agency also confirmed there were no recordings of communication from the agent’s mobile phone. The recording facility could only be activated for calls through the main office line.
23. It had listened to Mr X’s calls to the customer management centre. The agency explained its customer service agents should recognise when people are in distress and adapt their approach. It acknowledged that the service provided fell below its expectations and highlighted issues that need to be addressed.
24. In addition the enforcement agency confirmed Mr X’s credit history was not affected by this matter. It also confirmed Mr X’s details had been removed from its system.
25. It concluded his complaint in relation to the payment had been upheld and that a refund would be processed in the next 3 to 4 working days.
26. The Council also responded to Mr X’s concerns on 14 June 2024. It noted the enforcement agents had now responded to his complaint and suggested if he was unhappy he ask the enforcement agency to review his complaint.
27. Mr X was not satisfied with the response and asked to escalate his complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure. The enforcement agency responded on 27 June 2024 and acknowledged there were some training issues. It said initial data had come from the Council but the agent should have explained the actions taken since they had received the case and been clearer about where the additional data was obtained.
28. The agency reiterated it had reviewed the available footage which showed the enforcement agent acting in accordance with their duties. As there was no recording after payment it was unable to substantiate Mr X’s claims.
29. It noted Mr X had now received a refund.
30. Mr X also chased the Council for a response to his complaint. The Council responded on 4 July 2024 and noted he had completed the enforcement agency’s complaint process. It also noted Mr X was seeking compensation. As the Council was satisfied there was no breach of Data Protection and there had been no maladministration it had not upheld Mr X’s complaint. It did not therefore propose to offer compensation. It suggested Mr X address this with the enforcement agency.
31. In subsequent emails the Council apologised for any inconvenienced caused by delays in waiting to speak to advisors and for where calls were inadvertently disconnected. The Council was satisfied it acted swiftly in response to his call on 4 June to resolve Mr X’s incorrect association with the debt and request the payment be refunded.
32. The enforcement agency also refused Mr X’s request for compensation. It had upheld Mr X’s complaint about the payment and the conduct of one member of staff and considered it had taken the correct remedial action.
33. Mr X remains dissatisfied and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his concerns.

Analysis

34. There is no dispute Mr X was not responsible for the council tax debt for Property B. He has no connection to Property B and should not have been linked to or required to pay the debt. Mr X says this debt was owed by Mr Z.
35. While there are elements of Mr X’s name that are similar to Mr Z’s, their names are not the same, and even the similar element is spelt differently. We would expect the enforcement agents to identify the discrepancies between the information provided by the Council and its tracing service and take action to ensure they pursue the correct individual.
36. The enforcement agency’s actions in linking Mr X to the debt and in requiring payment from him are fault.
37. The enforcement agency has refunded the money Mr X paid, but this is the minimum we would expect. I do not consider this sufficient to remedy the injustice to Mr X. The visits by an enforcement agent caused Mr X unnecessary distress, worry, and embarrassment. He also had to pay a significant sum which was not returned for three weeks.
38. I consider there should be a symbolic payment to recognise the impact of the fault on Mr X.
39. Mr X also complains about the conduct of the enforcement agent and a customer service advisor. The enforcement agency has acknowledged Mr X did not receive the service he should have during one of his phone calls. But, based on the body worn camera footage, did not uphold his concerns about the enforcement agent.
40. Mr X suggests the agent’s behaviour changed when the body worn camera was not turned on.
41. Our investigations are evidence based. We cannot accept one person’s word against another’s but instead we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
42. I have not received any written records of Mr X’s conversations with the enforcement agent and calls to and from the enforcement agent’s mobile phone are not recorded. In addition the body- worn camera did not record the agent’s full interaction with Mr X on 5 June 2024.
43. In this instance the lack of evidence means I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, what was more likely to have happened.
44. The enforcement agency has apologised for any confusion caused in its calls regarding the source of information and has provided training to the staff involved.
45. It has also addressed the failure to turn the camera back on once they had completed the payment directly with the enforcement agent. I do not consider we can achieve any more in this respect.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. When a council commissions or arranges for another organisation to provide services we treat actions taken by or on behalf of that organisation as actions taken on behalf of the council and in the exercise of the council’s functions. Where we find fault with the actions of the service provider, we can make recommendations to the council alone. Here we have found fault with the actions of the enforcement agency and make the following recommendations to the Council.
47. The Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mr X for the fault identified and the distress and worry this caused. 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.
• Pay Mr X £150 in recognition of the distress, worry and embarrassment caused by an enforcement agent visiting his home and requiring payment.
48. The Council should take this action within eight weeks of the final decision on this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

49. The enforcement agency’s actions in linking Mr X to the debt and in requiring payment from him are fault. This faut has 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