Summary: The Council commissioned enforcement agent was at fault for not providing evidence that it had authority to enter Mr X’s premises. However, the Council had already provided Mr X with evidence it had a liability order, so this did not cause an injustice. The enforcement agent was also at fault for failing to consider whether to respond to Mr X’s concerns through the complaints’ procedures. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for this and issue a reminder to the enforcement agent.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to comply with the law when the enforcement agent it commissioned visited his property without providing the necessary proof he requested of their authority to enter in line with the relevant law. Mrs X says this caused him distress and frustration.

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. 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.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of my decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

8. 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)
9. Laws and regulations also control how enforcement agents can collect money owed to the council. (The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007)
10. A council which wants to recover unpaid council tax has to ask the magistrates’ 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.
11. If a council has a liability order from the magistrates’ court it can ask an enforcement agent to visit a person’s property and take goods worth up to the amount of council tax debt and costs. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 do not require the courts to issue an individual liability order for each person and the court order can be in an electronic format.
12. The law sets out a clear procedure for how enforcement agents can do this. This is called “taking control of goods”. (Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007)
13. At paragraph 26 (1) of Schedule 12 states:

The enforcement agent must on request show the debtor and any person who appears to him to be in charge of the premises evidence of:

1. His identity and
2. His authority to enter the premises

The request may be made before the enforcement agent enters the premises or while he is there.

14. Paragraph 66 of the 2007 Act says a debtor may bring action for a breach of provisions of the Schedule, or action under a defective warrant in the High or County Court.
15. Case law (Leighton v Bristow and Suitor 2023) found, in that case, that a court list paired with a signature applied at the end of the list by the magistrate was enough to show that a liability order had been made. The case found, in that case, the wording of the enforcement agent’s Authority to Act was technically incorrect as it implied that the Authority to Act presented to the debtor gave the authority to take control of goods rather than the underlying law (Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and all Regulations made under it.)
16. Once an enforcement agent returns a debt to the council the enforcement power ends (Para 17 Fee Regulations). So if there are any unpaid fees the enforcement agent cannot take action to recover them.

What happened

17. In July 2024 the Council issued Mr X with a notice that it had obtained a liability order in the Magistrates Court for a council tax debt. In late July the Council also provided Mr X with an extract of the record from the Magistrate’s Court hearing and a covering document signed by the Justice of the Peace confirming that ‘the defendants are liable to pay the aggregate amount specified in respect of them in the Table, and it is ordered that those amounts may be enforced in the manner mentioned in Part VI of those Regulations accordingly’, as evidence of the liability order.
18. In early August 2024 Mr X received a notice of enforcement through the post from an enforcement agent the Council had commissioned to pursue council tax debts on its behalf.
19. Mr X contacted the enforcement agent and requested evidence, in line with paragraph 26(1) of Schedule 12, that the enforcement agent had authority to enter his premises.
20. The enforcement agent responded that its client (the Council) had obtained a court order and its authority was granted under Schedule 12 of the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
21. Mr X considered the enforcement agent was in breach of the law and he wanted damages. In further correspondence with Mr X the enforcement agent explained it was required to demonstrate authority to enforce the liability order but it did not have to produce the actual liability order. It said its records show the Council obtained the liability order in July 2024. Mr X responded that it did not need to provide a copy of the liability order but had to provide authority to enter the premises.
22. Mr X continued to correspond with the enforcement agent. In early October 2024, the enforcement agent said the Council would provide details of the court hearing, council tax liability details, amounts payable and court costs. Mr X reiterated he wanted evidence/proof of authority to enter his premises.
23. Mr X submitted a formal complaint to the Council in November 2024. It responded in late December 2024. It attached a copy of its instructions to the enforcement agent and its authority to act. It explained the enforcement agent had authority to enter premises under Schedule 12 of the Act.
24. Following further correspondence with the enforcement agent, in January 2025 Mr X submitted a formal complaint to the enforcement agent who advised that the Council would be responding.
25. The Council responded to Mr X at the second stage of its complaints’ procedure in late January 2025. It said liability orders were granted and so it authorised the enforcement agent to enforce the liability order using the procedure set out in schedule 12 of the Act.
26. The enforcement agent has since returned the debt to the Council.

Findings

27. In late July 2024, the Council provided Mr X with evidence that it had obtained a liability order. In line with the case law, I am satisfied, on balance, that this evidence shows a liability order exists which provides the Council with authority to enforce the debt, which includes instructing enforcement agents to attend and enter his property. Mr X disputes the extract and covering note are sufficient proof of a liability order. If Mr X disagrees with the document’s validity it is open to him to challenge this in court.
28. Mr X was entitled, in line with case law, to request evidence of the enforcement agent’s authority to enter once he became aware that the debt had been passed to it for recovery. There was no need for him to wait until it visited his premises. There was a significant amount of correspondence between the enforcement agent and Mr X on this issue. The enforcement agent repeatedly said it did not need to provide proof of the liability order and referred Mr X to the Council.
29. The case law suggests it is for the enforcement agent to show it has authority to enter and to do so when requested. It did not do so and this was fault. It was not sufficient to repeatedly state that the Council had a court order. However, I do not consider this caused Mr X an injustice. This is because the Council had already provided him with a copy of the court extract and decision of the Justice of the Peace which gave the Council the authority to recover the debt in line with the regulations.
30. The protracted correspondence with the enforcement agent did cause Mr X some frustration. Mr X was clearly dissatisfied with the enforcement agent’s position. The enforcement agent should have considered sooner whether this was in fact a complaint to be dealt with through its procedure or referred to the Council to dealt with through its procedure. The failure to properly consider this was fault which meant the correspondence with Mr X continued for longer than it should have.
31. The enforcement agent has a now returned the debt to the Council which means it can no longer recover any enforcement charges.

Back to top

Agreed Action

32. 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 enforcement agent and make the following recommendations to the Council.
33. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X for the frustration he was caused by the protracted correspondence with Council commissioned enforcement agent.
2. remind its enforcement agent to:
1. provide evidence of its authority to enter when requested, this may mean obtaining a copy of the relevant evidence from the Council that it obtained a liability order or getting confirmation from the Council that it has already provided a copy of the liability order; and
2. avoid protracted correspondence and consider whether it would be appropriate, if correspondence is ongoing, to respond to concerns through the formal complaints’ procedures.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

35. There was fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman