Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly pursued enforcement action for unpaid council tax after it had closed his account. We found the Council was at fault for failing to withdraw court costs when it closed the account, which led to avoidable enforcement action. This caused Mr X and his wife avoidable distress and time and trouble, and the Council has agreed to our remedy proposal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about enforcement action taken by the Council. Mr X says the Council pursed enforcement action for an alleged unpaid Council Tax bill from 2019, which he paid at the time. Mr X would like the Council to provide a remedy for expenses incurred resolving this matter, and a remedy for distress caused as a result of incorrect enforcement action.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr X and the Council were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments submitted before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Laws and regulations 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)
7. 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).
8. 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 act to recover the money and any court costs owed. This may include asking enforcement agents to collect the debt.
9. Laws and regulations control how enforcement agents can collect money owed to the council. Enforcement agents can add their charges, as set out in regulations, to the debt they are recovering. For example, an enforcement agent must issue a ‘notice of enforcement’ for a council tax debt and may add a fee at that stage. (The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007)

Back to top

What happened

10. Mr X owned a property which he rented out through managing agents. In March 2024, the Council received notification via its online portal that the tenants would be vacating at the end of that month. The Council processed the change in April 2024 and billed Mr X for council tax from 31 March 2024, as the property appeared unoccupied.
11. The Council issued the bill in April 2024 by email. It later sent a reminder to a forwarding address in May 2024. When no payment was received, it issued a summons in July 2024. A liability order was granted by the magistrates’ court at the end of that month. The Council closed the account in August 2024 after the managing agents confirmed the tenants had remained in occupation. However, it did not withdraw the court costs. These remained on the account and, in September 2024, the case was automatically passed to enforcement agents.
12. Mr X and his wife said they were unaware of the council tax liability or enforcement proceedings until a bailiff visited their address in October 2024. They said the visit caused them distress and required them to take time off work to attend the Council’s offices to resolve the matter.
13. The Council said all correspondence was sent to the last known forwarding address and that it had no reason to believe the address was incorrect, as no post had been returned. It said it was not aware its records were out of date until Mr X made contact following the bailiff visit.
14. In early November 2024, Mr X contacted the Council and disputed the charges. He believed the enforcement action related to an unpaid council tax bill from 2019, which he said he had paid. He provided a statement from 2019, while the managing agents confirmed the property had remained occupied throughout 2024. The Council later confirmed the enforcement action had been for a 2024 bill and accepted that the liability should not have been pursued. Following this, the Council withdrew the enforcement action and confirmed the costs should not have been pursued. It accepted this was due to a staff error and said enforcement would not have been initiated had the costs been withdrawn when the account was closed.

Back to top

Analysis

15. Councils are entitled to pursue unpaid council tax using enforcement powers where a liability has been established and appropriate legal steps have been followed. This includes issuing reminders, obtaining a liability order through the magistrates’ court, and referring cases to enforcement agents. However, councils must act fairly and in accordance with their legal responsibilities. If it becomes clear that a debt is not owed, or that liability has changed, they must take steps to stop enforcement and correct their records.
16. In this case, the Council billed Mr X for a period during which it believed the property was unoccupied. Based on the information it had at the time, this was a justified decision. The Council sent the bill by email and sent subsequent correspondence to the forwarding address it held for Mr X. It said no post was returned undelivered and that it had no reason to believe its records were inaccurate. I do not criticise the Council for relying on this information at the point it raised liability.
17. However, by August 2024 the Council had received confirmation from the managing agents that tenants had remained in occupation. It closed Mr X’s account based on this information, but failed to withdraw the court costs it had added during the recovery process. These costs remained on the account and were subsequently referred to enforcement agents. The Council accepts this was a staff error and acknowledges that enforcement would not have proceeded had the summons costs been withdrawn at the time. I consider this an administrative failing that directly led to avoidable enforcement action.
18. The Council’s failure to act on the updated liability position reflects a missed opportunity to prevent enforcement action. Once it received confirmation that the property remained occupied, it should have withdrawn the summons costs. Although the Council continued to use the forwarding address it held at the time, there was no indication the address was incorrect, and I do not find fault in that. Mr X may have contributed to the situation by not updating his contact details, but this does not absolve the Council of responsibility. The primary cause of the enforcement visit was its failure to stop recovery action once it knew the liability had ended and no debt remained
19. As a result, Mr X and his wife were subject to unnecessary enforcement activity, including a visit from a bailiff. This caused them significant distress and inconvenience. They had to take time off work and attend the Council’s offices in person to resolve the matter. Mr X’s wife experienced a panic attack and required medication to manage the anxiety caused. This was an avoidable impact arising from the Council’s failure to properly conclude the case.
20. The Council took steps to cancel enforcement once Mr X made contact and the situation became clear. It accepted its error and withdrew the remaining balance. However, these actions came after the harm had occurred and did not prevent the injustice already suffered.

Back to top

Agreed action

21. Mr X asked the Council to reimburse him for lost income and other financial losses linked to the enforcement action. The Ombudsman does not recommend financial remedies for loss of earnings, as this is a matter more appropriate for the courts. However, I have considered the avoidable time, trouble and distress caused to Mr X and his wife in resolving the matter, and have made a recommendation to reflect that injustice.
22. The Council’s admitted failure to withdraw court costs when it closed Mr X’s account led directly to inappropriate enforcement action, including a visit from an enforcement agent. The visit caused Mr X and his wife avoidable distress and required them to take time off work and travel in person to resolve the matter. Mr X’s wife experienced a panic attack as a result of the incident, which required medication. The situation caused more than the usual level of inconvenience and was compounded by weaknesses in the Council’s handling of correspondence and its delay in recognising and correcting the error. I am therefore satisfied that a remedy of £400 is justified in the circumstances.
23. To prevent similar occurrences and remedy injustice identified in this complaint, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X and his wife;
2. pay Mr X £400 to recognise the distress and time and trouble he and his wife experienced in resolving the matter.
3. ensure staff are reminded to check for outstanding costs when closing a liability; and
4. that accounts are not passed to enforcement agents where liability has ended, unless a manual check confirms the balance is still due.
24. The Council will complete actions a to b within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision and action points c and d within two months of the Ombudsman’s final decision. The Council will provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

25. We found the Council was at fault for failing to withdraw court costs when it closed the account, which led to avoidable enforcement action. This caused Mr X and his wife avoidable distress and time and trouble and the Council has agreed to our remedy proposal.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman