Summary: Mr C complained that the Council unreasonably tried to recover a council tax debt from him, 14 years after the debt arose and without any prior notification. We have not found fault with the decision to recover the debt, but we have found fault with the lack of information provided to Mr C about the debt before it sent a summons and when he disputed it. This resulted in two summons being sent without explanation for the debt, which caused Mr C distress. The Council also delayed in responding to Mr C’s stage one complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C, pay him £250 and improve its procedures for the future.

The complaint

1. Mr C complained that Birmingham City Council (the Council) unreasonably tried to recover a council tax debt from him, 14 years after the debt arose and without any prior notification or consideration of the circumstances. This has caused Mr C significant distress at a difficult time.

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 considered evidence provided by Mr C and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr C 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

Council tax recovery

6. 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).
7. 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.

Joint and several liability

8. The Local Government Finance Act 1992 (section 6(4)) says joint tenants, are jointly and severally liable for the council tax. This means each of them are responsible for paying the whole charge. If one party leaves and the joint bill is unpaid a council can pursue either of them for the remaining debt.
9. The law does not set a limit on how far a council can backdate liability. The six year limit to recover a debt (Limitation Act 1980 (Section 9(2)) only starts from when the bill is sent (Regentford Ltd v Thanet District Council ([2004] EWHC 246 (Admin)).

What happened

10. Mr C was a joint tenant of a property from October 2010 to June 2012. He says he paid council tax to the other joint tenant and was not aware it had not been paid.
11. During the period of liability, the Council had been corresponding with the landlord about the council tax. The landlord said the property was tenanted and he was not resident, but he did not provide any proof, so the Council kept him as the liable person and pursued recovery against him for the debt of £2,600. The Council obtained a liability order and referred the debt to the bailiffs. In 2015 the Council obtained a charging order against the landlord and took no further action.
12. In June 2024 the landlord provided the Council with a copy of the tenancy agreement naming Mr C and the other joint tenant and showing the rent was exclusive of council tax.
13. In July 2024 the Council made the two tenants liable and pursued recovery. It sent a bill and reminder to the other tenant (as the lead person on the account) in August and September 2024
14. It then sent a summons to both parties on 4 October 2024. The summons did not give any details of when or how the debt arose and demanded payment over the next nine months or in full by 1 November 2024.
15. Mr C disputed the debt. He said the debt was more than six years old so should not be recoverable. He queried the size of the debt as the other tenant should also be paying and said he had not received any prior notice of the debt. The Council provided a statement of account and said a bill and reminder had been sent out. It did not acknowledge they had not been sent to him. Mr C also spoke to the Council by telephone and said he was advised the matter would be escalated to management for a full response and the recovery would be put on hold.
16. Mr C received a liability order for the debt on 12 November 2024 threatening use of the bailiffs, so he made a formal complaint on the same day. On 18 November 2024 the Council withdrew the summons and costs and put the account on hold for 30 days. It sent a copy of the bill to Mr C. He also complained to us. We sent the complaint back to the Council to investigate and respond.
17. The Council suspended recovery of the account pending completion of the stage one complaint response which it sent on 21 January 2025. It should have sent the response by 3 December 2024. It explained that Mr C was jointly and severally liable for the debt which meant that the Council could pursue either party for the whole debt. It also said the Limitation Act did not apply, any private arrangement with the other tenant were not relevant and it offered a payment arrangement over a longer period of time.
18. Mr C escalated the complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council responded on 17 February 2025. It maintained that its actions were reasonable, explained joint and several liability again and confirmed it would be recovering the debt. It again offered a special payment arrangement if Mr C could not afford the current instalments.
19. Mr C complained to us. The Council withdrew a summons it had sent in February 2025 and suspended recovery of the debt until April 2025. It obtained a liability order in June 2025.
20. In response to my enquiries the Council has explained that its system automatically sends out bills and reminders to the first named liable person. But it rectified this problem by withdrawing the summons and putting a hold on the account to allow Mr C more time to process the information.

Analysis

21. It must have been an unpleasant shock to receive a summons in the post with very little information about how or why the debt had arisen. I understand the Council can send bills and reminders to just one liable party before it sends the summons and its system automatically does so. However, given the age of the debt and the lack of any previous contact with Mr C, I consider it should have ensured Mr C received prior notification with more details of the debt. This was fault which caused Mr C distress.
22. The Council’s first explanation for the debt was brief and inaccurate as it did not acknowledge that Mr C had not received the bill or the reminder, so had received no explanation for the debt including when or how it arose. Again, given the age of the debt I would expect the Council to have provided more information to explain why it was recovering the debt now. This was fault which added to Mr C’s distress.
23. The Council exacerbated the distress again, by sending another summons with no further explanation despite promising to provide one during the telephone call.
24. Following Mr C’s formal complaint, the Council took reasonable action by withdrawing the summons and costs and suspending recovery, but it then took over two months to respond to the complaint. This was additional fault which caused Mr C further distress and frustration.
25. The stage one response correctly explained that Mr C was jointly and severally liable for the complaint so the Council could recover the whole debt from him, any private arrangement with the joint tenant did not affect his liability and the Limitation Act did not apply. The stage two response upheld the Council’s view. and was sent promptly.
26. In terms of the substantive issue of whether the Council should be recovering the debt, I find no fault: the Council can backdate liability without limit and the Limitation Act only applies from the date a bill is sent, so in Mr C’s case the clock started in July 2024.
27. The council tax was not paid during the period Mr C lived in the property as a tenant and both tenants were jointly and severally liable so the Council can pursue either of them for the whole debt. Whether or not Mr C had a private arrangement with the other tenant and expected them to pay the council tax is not relevant to the Council’s decision to recover the debt from him now. Mr C did not check the council tax had been paid while he was a tenant, bills and reminders would have been sent during the period of occupation and Mr C did not notify the Council when he moved out, which may have provided an opportunity to resolve the debt at a much earlier point. When the landlord provided details of the tenants in June 2024, the Council acted without delay.

Back to top

Action

28. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr C, in the initial stages of recovery, the Council has agreed, within one month of the date of my final decision, to:
• apologise to Mr C and pay him £250; and
• remind staff in the case of historic debts, that the officer will review the circumstances and attempt to make contact with the liable party (by email, telephone or letter) so they can clarify the reasons for pursuing the debt and the officer will record notes of any discussion. Officers will then take appropriate action which may include withdrawing the summons and costs and allowing the liable person to make a payment arrangement.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman