Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council handled her council tax account. The Council was at fault in how it considered its debt recovery process and communicated with Miss X about her complaint. This caused Miss X avoidable distress, time, and trouble. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. It will also decide what changes are needed to its processes, or staff training, to ensure it does not miss council tax queries in future.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about how the Council handled her council tax account. She says the Council failed to:
• correctly calculate her council tax liability, or consider her requests for council tax support, from 2020 to 2023;
• properly respond when she raised queries and concerns in 2024 about how it had considered her liability and circumstances in previous years;
• follow the correct debt recovery process in 2024 when it sought to recover council tax arrears for previous years. This includes a failure to consider her request for an affordable payment plan, and support with the recovery process as a disabled person; and
• properly respond to her 2024 complaint about these issues. It did not properly investigate its previous contact with Miss X, wrongly contradicted her about what conversations had taken place, and ignored evidence she provided to the contrary.
2. Because of this Miss X says she experienced:
• financial loss and hardship because she overpaid her council tax, and paid avoidable recovery fees; and
• distress, worsening her existing mental and physical health problems.
3. Miss X wants the Council to:
• apologise;
• review her council tax payments and recovery charges for all affected years and repay her for financial loss; and
• improve its services to ensure it keeps proper records of council tax accounts, properly investigates and responds to council tax queries and complaints, and provides better support for disabled people.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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). The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
7. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
8. 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.
9. 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

10. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council, and relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

Council tax

12. There are laws and regulations that control how councils collect council tax payments and how they can make people pay council tax they owe. (Council Tax [Administration and Enforcement] Regulations 1992)
13. The council tax bill for the year is due on 1 April. A council will usually collect this through monthly instalments. If a person who has to pay council tax misses any instalment, the council will send them a reminder. If they still do not pay, or miss another payment, then they must pay all they owe (that is the full amount for the rest of the year).
14. Councils who want to recover unpaid council tax have to ask the magistrate’s court for a liability order against people it thinks owe it the money. Once a council has a liability order it can take action to recover the money and any court costs owed.
15. Most often councils take what is owed directly from the person’s benefits, from their wages (called getting an attachment of earnings order) or using enforcement agents. The council can decide how to recover what is owed but it can only use one method for one liability order at one time.
16. Councils should be prepared to work directly with someone who owes money at any point and can stop enforcement action at any time. They should consider doing this whenever appropriate.
17. Council tax reduction (CTR, also known as council tax support) is a discount, not a benefit. It reduces the amount of council tax a person has to pay. 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 Council’s policy for recovery of council tax debt

18. The Council’s policy says it will:
• work with people in debt to set payment arrangements they can afford. All payment arrangements will be sustainable for the customer, considering their income, outgoings, and savings;
• seek to clear debts within the financial year of the liability. Where this is not possible, it will seek to reach a payment agreement that allows, as a minimum, payment of the continuing liability plus an affordable amount off any arrears; and
• give due regard to debt recovery for customers who are vulnerable. It may consider someone is vulnerable if they are seriously ill, have mental ill health, or have physical disabilities. This does not automatically mean recovery action is not suitable. The Council will consider individual circumstances to decide if recovery action is suitable and, if so, what action to take.

What I have and have not investigated

19. Part of Miss X’s complaint is the Council failed to correctly calculate her council tax liability, or consider her requests for council tax support, from 2020 to 2023. (Miss X told me she does not dispute her council tax liability for the latest tax year 2024/25).
20. We do not usually investigate complaints about how a council calculated someone’s council tax liability, or considered applications for council tax support. There is a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal for decisions about council tax liability and council tax support or reduction. Miss X does not agree she was liable for the payment the Council was seeking from her. She did not appeal to the Valuation Tribunal; therefore, I must consider whether it would be unreasonable to expect her to have used this appeal right.
21. Also, the law says we cannot investigate events which happened more than twelve months before somebody complained to us, unless we decide there are good reasons it took them longer to complain. Miss X first came to the Ombudsman in August 2024, so we would usually only look at what happened after August 2023.
22. I consider there are no good reasons to look back further than August 2023, and it was reasonable for Miss X to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about her liability before this, because:
• The Council issued Miss X with council tax bills each year for the tax years 2020/21, 2022/23, and 2023/24. These bills told her how to appeal if she disagreed.
• Miss X says she applied for council tax support in each of these previous tax years. Council records show Miss X applied in 2021 for council tax support to cover both the 2021/22 tax year, and the 2020/21 tax year retrospectively. The Council decided it would not provide support and told her how to appeal if she disagreed.
• Miss X could have appealed or complained to the Council, appealed to the Valuation Tribunal, or approached the Ombudsman, sooner if she was unhappy with how the Council dealt with her council tax liability and council tax support claims in previous years.
• Miss X told me she did not raise the issues with previous years sooner because she has significant health problems and has only recently been well enough to do so. Although I understand Miss X has health problems, this does not mean her council tax liability is an issue the Ombudsman should consider. The Valuation Tribunal is the appropriate body to consider these issues, and we normally expect people to use this route. After Miss X contacted the Council in 2024, she could have asked the Valuation Tribunal, as the most appropriate body, to consider a late appeal about previous years, but she did not. Miss X said she could not make a late Tribunal appeal because the Council delayed in providing copies of documents she sought about her council tax account and she needed this to make her appeal. I do not consider this to be a good reason Miss X could not appeal. The Valuation Tribunal website is clear it will seek information it needs from the Council itself as part of the appeal process. Also, the Council provided the documentation Miss X had asked for in August 2024, on the same day she then approached the Ombudsman. Miss X could have approached the Valuation Tribunal on the same day to ask it to consider a late appeal if she still wished to contest issues of liability.
23. Therefore, I have not investigated Miss X’s complaint about whether the Council failed to correctly calculate her council tax liability, or consider her requests for council tax support, in previous years. This includes the tax years 2020/21, 2022/23, and 2023/24. The Valuation Tribunal is an independent expert body whose decisions are binding on the Council. It would have been reasonable to make an appeal to the Tribunal in this case.
24. I have also not investigated recovery action taken by the Council to recover council tax debt from Miss X before 2024. Miss X said she did not want to complain about this; her complaint about recovery action is only about her contact with the Council in 2024.
25. One issue Miss X raised with the Council in 2024 was about how it kept recordings of phone calls with her. I did not investigate this. We will not normally investigate a complaint about data protection, as we expect people to refer these matters to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner is the body set up by the government to respond to complaints and concerns about data protection and access to personal information so I will not investigate these issues further.

What happened

26. In late 2021, the Council set up an attachment of earnings order to recover money Miss X owed for 2020/21 and 2021/22. This attachment order continued until early 2023. Although Miss X had not cleared the debt, the Council stopped receiving money via the liability order because she left the employer the order was in place with.
27. In March 2023 the Council issued an annual bill for the coming council tax year 2023/24. This told Miss X how to appeal if she disagreed. Miss X did not pay this bill in 2023/24, so the Council got a liability order from the magistrate’s court.
28. In February 2024, the Council realised it had not received money via the attachment of earnings order for a year. At this point it contacted Miss X’s employer and realised she had left. It then sent Miss X notice of the three liability orders still in place, for the remaining debts for 2020/21, 2021/22, and 2023/24, totalling nearly £3,000. This said Miss X should tell the Council if she would have difficulty paying, but if she did not provide the information requested within 14 days, it would recover the debt via an attachment of earnings order, benefits deductions, or using enforcement agents.
29. Miss X then contacted the Council in late-February 2024. To summarise the key points raised, Miss X:
• said she disputed the debt the Council wanted to recover from her. She thought the Council had given her wrong information in the past and should have reduced her council tax liability because of her low income and disabilities. She wanted to know how the Council had calculated her liability and decided about council tax support (CTS) claims in previous years, and asked for copies of documentation for all CTS claims made since 2020;
• told the Council she is disabled and has mental health issues, so asked it to provide extra support to help her resolve the debt. She asked the Council to set up a payment plan by taking deductions directly from her benefit payments; and
• said she wanted to apply for CTS for the coming 2024/25 tax year. She asked the Council to make reasonable adjustments for her disabilities and support her in applying without the need to use its online application form.
30. Ten days later, in March 2024, the Council contacted Miss X to explain it would not provide CTS based on the information she provided about her income in her last claim made in 2021. It asked Miss X to let the Council know if her circumstances had changed since then. Miss X:
• told the Council it had not answered all her queries;
• said she could not afford to immediately pay all the debt from previous years, and still disputed she should owe this; and
• made a new CTS application with updated information about her income. She asked the Council to backdate this to January 2024, to cover some of the 2023/24 tax year, and the coming 2024/25 tax year.
31. In late-March 2024, the Council told Miss X it would award her CTS for the 2024/25 tax year from April 2024, but it could not backdate the claim to January without further evidence. Miss X told me she accepts this claim cannot be backdated further and this is not part of her complaint.
32. In April 2024, Miss X chased the Council as she had not received a response to her queries raised in February. The Council wrote to Miss X and explained how it assesses and calculates CTS claims. It said it compares the applicant’s income with a “personal allowance” figure, which is specified in Council policy based on individual circumstances such as family size and any disabilities. If someone is disabled it will account for this by increasing their personal allowance, but only when they are in receipt of disability benefits, which Miss X was not. It also told Miss X appeals about CTS claims are dealt with by the Valuation Tribunal. Miss X responded that the Council had still not answered all her queries.
33. In June 2024, Miss X had not paid her debts from previous years, so the Council instructed an external enforcement agency to pursue recovery on its behalf. The enforcement agency told Miss X it would be pursuing enforcement action. Miss X rang the Council a week later. The Council does not have records of this call but says it agreed to suspend recovery action for 30 days while Miss X explored whether her CTS claim could be backdated to previous years. Council records show it contacted the enforcement agency after this and suspended enforcement action for 60 days.
34. In July 2024, Miss X:
• contacted the enforcement agency and cleared the debt for 2023/24 and 2022/23. This left a remaining debt of around £185 for 2020/21; and
• complained to the Council that it had never responded to all the queries she first raised in February, despite repeated contact.
35. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint at Stage 1 in August 2024. It said it considered it had responded to all queries she had raised in 2024 through various phone calls and correspondence. Miss X escalated her complaint, but the Council’s position remained the same at Stage 2, that it had responded to all queries raised. Around the same time, the enforcement agency automatically lifted the 60-day recovery suspension it had placed at the Council’s request and started to contact Miss X about the debt again.
36. In late-August 2024:
• Miss X continued to dispute her liability for previous years and the Council sent her a summary of all money owed and payments made for the disputed years.
• The Council said it would suspend recovery action for the remaining £185 for a further 30 days. In response to our enquiries, it accepted it did not contact the enforcement agency to action this. However, Miss X contacted the enforcement agency three days later anyway and cleared the remaining debt.
• Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
37. After Miss X came to the Ombudsman, she continued to contact the Council about the issues. In response to this further contact the Council said it had:
• no record Miss X had asked its council tax team to set up a payment plan to help her clear the debt;
• now provided her with the requested summary of all money owed and payments made for the disputed years;
• already provided several comprehensive responses to Miss X’s concerns and could not add anything further; and
• closed the case with the enforcement agency as Miss X had now paid the debt in full.

My findings

Recovery action in 2024

38. The Council contacted Miss X in February 2024 with notice of the three liability orders still in place, for the remaining debts for 2020/21, 2021/22, and 2023/24. The Council had liability orders from the court for these debts and so was entitled to pursue recovery action. I understand it may have been upsetting for Miss X to receive this contact about historic debts a year after the Council had last taken money via an attachment order. However, this gap in action 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.
39. However, the Council was at fault in how it conducted the recovery process because:
• its policy says where it is pursuing debts from a previous year, it will consider a payment agreement to allow someone to pay their continuing council tax liability while making affordable payments off any arrears. The Council was pursuing debts from 2020/21 and 2021/22. However, it did not consider how it could make this affordable for Miss X while she continued to pay her ongoing council tax bills; and
• in response to our enquiries the Council accepted it did not properly consider Miss X’s February 2024 request for a payment plan, and support with the debt recovery process as a disabled person. It said it sent this to the wrong team. The Council did not consider and record whether Miss X was a vulnerable customer under its recovery policy, and whether this meant it should handle recovery any differently.
40. 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 Miss X was vulnerable under its policy, I do not consider this would have significantly changed things for her in this case. The Council could have chosen a different recovery method or payment schedule. However, Miss X was still disputing her liability for the debt up to June 2024 when the Council decided to instruct an enforcement agency. The Council then paused recovery action because Miss X said she was exploring whether to make a backdated CTS claim. While recovery action was suspended, Miss X then contacted the enforcement agency to clear most of the debt. At the time of my decision, Miss X has not made any appeal to the Valuation Tribunal, or any backdated CTS claim to the Council, to cover the previous years.
41. Miss X had to pay a £75 fee to the enforcement agency for each of the three debts it pursued, so incurred added costs of £225. If the Council had properly considered Miss X’s vulnerability and financial circumstances, it may have decided it was not suitable to use a recovery method with added costs. There remains uncertainty for Miss X about how things may have been different with the recovery process, which causes distress. The Council should remedy the injustice caused.

Communication and complaint handling

42. Miss X disputes the Council’s position about how it responded to her various communications and phone calls.
43. I am satisfied the Council is at fault in how it responded to her repeated queries and then her complaint. It repeatedly failed to recognise it had not responded to all her queries. It was only in responding to our enquiries it recognised it never considered all the queries Miss X raised from February 2024. The confusing way it responded to her complaint caused her avoidable time and trouble in repeatedly pursuing the same issues. The Council should provide a remedy for this injustice.

Back to top

Action

44. Within one month of our final decision the Council will:
1. apologise to Miss X for the faults 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
2. pay Miss X £200, comprising of:
1. £100 to recognise the distress caused by the uncertainty about how things may have been different for her if it had properly considered her vulnerability and financial circumstances during the recovery process; and
2. £100 to recognise the avoidable time and trouble caused by its repeated failure to recognise when it responded to her complaint that it had not answered all her queries.
45. Within three months of our final decision the Council will review why it passed Miss X’s February 2024 council tax queries to the wrong team. It will:
• decide what changes are needed to its processes, or staff training, to prevent council tax queries being missed like this in future; and
• remind relevant staff of what its debt recovery policy says about consideration of vulnerable customers, and how any considerations should be recorded.
46. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

47. I found fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman