Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to update his address and respond appropriately when he reported problems accessing its online portal, which led to avoidable enforcement action. Although the Council eventually withdrew enforcement action and removed associated costs, it had enough information to prevent escalation at an earlier stage. Its failure to act on this led to avoidable distress, time and trouble for Mr X. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to update his address for Council Tax correspondence, resulting in notices being sent to his previous property. He also says the Council did not respond appropriately when he reported problems accessing its online portal, which prevented him from making payments. Mr X says enforcement action was taken despite his attempts to resolve the matter, and he continued to receive enforcement communications even after making payments. Mr X considers the Council’s handling of the matter caused significant distress to him and his wife.

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 had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Council Tax recovery

6. The recovery of Council Tax is governed by the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. These set out the steps a council must take to pursue unpaid Council Tax.
7. The Council Tax bill is normally due in full on 1 April, but councils usually allow payment by monthly instalments. If a person misses an instalment, the council will issue a reminder. If payment is not made, or if further payments are missed, the right to pay by instalments is lost and the full year’s charge becomes due.
8. To enforce recovery, a council must apply to the magistrates’ court for a liability order. This gives the council legal authority to pursue enforcement action, which may include instructing enforcement agents. Councils may also add court and enforcement costs to the amount owed.
9. Councils should take reasonable steps to ensure that Council Tax notices and recovery documents are sent to the correct address. They are expected to act on up-to-date information where available. Where notices are issued to an address the council has reason to believe is no longer current, this may undermine the fairness of recovery action.

Good administrative practice

10. The Ombudsman expects councils to follow principles of good administrative practice. This includes keeping accurate and timely records, responding appropriately to correspondence, and ensuring decisions are based on up-to-date information. Councils should act fairly, proportionately, and consistently, and ensure individuals are not disadvantaged by avoidable delay, poor communication, or failures in record-keeping. Where problems are identified, councils should take prompt action to put things right and minimise any avoidable harm. These principles are set out in the Ombudsman’s guidance on Good Administrative Practice, which forms part of our approach to assessing fault.

Back to top

What happened

11. I have included a summary of some of the key events in this complaint. This is not intended to be a comprehensive account of everything that took place.
12. In October 2023, Mr X and his partner moved into a new property (Address B) and became liable for Council Tax. The Council issued a bill for the 2023/24 financial year to their old address, Address A.
13. Mr X completed an online move-in form on 24 October 2023 and received an automated acknowledgment. No payments were made during 2023, and the Council issued reminder and final notices in April 2024. These were sent to Address A.
14. In early April 2024, Mr X made a payment of £187.46 by telephone. This was allocated to the 2024/25 tax year. On 17 May 2024, Mr X emailed the Council with a PDF document advising he had moved out of Address A on 14 May 2024 and raising concerns about problems accessing the Council’s online portal. The Council did not index or act on this email until 18 June 2024.
15. In the meantime, the Council issued a court summons on 3 June 2024 and obtained a liability order on 24 June 2024. It referred Mr X’s account to enforcement agents on 25 June 2024. The address on the account remained as Address A, despite the Council having received the updated address details.
16. Mr X responded to the Council’s follow-up email on 20 June 2024, confirming he was still experiencing problems accessing the portal. He continued to contact the Council in July 2024. The Council updated his address in late July 2024. However, it did not issue a closing bill to the new property until 22 October 2024. This bill incorrectly included two sets of recovery fees. The Council later issued an amended bill on 7 November 2024 with the charges corrected.
17. Following further contact, the Council withdrew the case from enforcement agents on 7 November 2024, removed the court costs, and arranged for the £75 enforcement fee to be refunded.
18. Mr X submitted complaints in November and December 2024. In response, the Council apologised for the delays in updating the address and acknowledged that Mr X had experienced problems accessing its online services. It explained that the portal did not allow direct payment and said other payment methods had remained available. It offered no financial remedy beyond the refund of enforcement costs and removal of court fees.
19. Mr X considered this an inadequate response and remained dissatisfied.

Response to enquiries

20. As part of my investigation, I made enquiries to the Council. Of note, the Council said:
• It received notification in May 2024 that Mr X had moved, but did not index or act on this information until 18 June, and did not update its records until around 21 July 2024.
• Enforcement action proceeded in June 2024 based on the old address, despite the Council having received notification of Mr X’s move.
• It withdrew enforcement action in November 2024 and arranged for the refund of a £75 compliance fee and removal of court costs.
• Mr X experienced problems accessing the online portal, but the Council said the portal did not allow payments and alternative methods were available.
• The Council said it did not receive other reports of technical issues from users and believes the system was working as intended.
• It acknowledged that customer service was affected by backlogs following a system migration between October and December 2023.
• It apologised for the delay in updating the address and for the portal access issues but offered no further remedy beyond refunds and revised payment arrangements

Back to top

Analysis

Delay in updating address

21. Mr X submitted a document on 17 May 2024 notifying the Council that he and his partner had moved out of Address A. The Council did not index or acknowledge this until 18 June 2024 and did not update its systems until around 21 July 2024. However, the Council did not send any postal correspondence to the new address until 23 October 2024, when Mr X received a letter from enforcement agents. This delay was fault.
22. The Ombudsman expects Councils to act promptly on correspondence, particularly where it contains critical information such as a change of address. Councils have a duty to maintain accurate records and avoid taking action based on outdated or incorrect information. Once the Council was in possession of the updated address, it was under a duty to ensure that enforcement and recovery processes were not allowed to proceed unchecked on the basis of the old address. The Council had a clear opportunity to verify and action the address change before progressing recovery action through the courts and enforcement agents.
23. The Council has explained that a new system was implemented between October and December 2023 and this contributed to a backlog. While it may account for general service disruption, it does not justify the specific failure to process time-sensitive correspondence, particularly when the Council was concurrently initiating recovery proceedings.
24. This failure to act on the address update caused injustice to Mr X. It meant the Council continued to send important correspondence, including the court summons and enforcement referral, to a property Mr X had vacated. This undermined his ability to respond effectively to escalating recovery action and contributed to the eventual enforcement referral. The Council’s own chronology confirms that key events, including the liability order and enforcement instruction, occurred after it had received (but failed to act on) the new address details.
25. Had the address been updated promptly, enforcement action could have been paused or avoided altogether. The Council did eventually correct the records, withdraw enforcement action, and refund the related costs. However, these steps were taken after Mr X had suffered avoidable distress and had to actively pursue resolution. Although Mr X had been corresponding with the Council by email until 22 July 2024, there was no further communication until he received a letter from enforcement agents on 23 October. This gap added to his uncertainty and limited his ability to respond before further action was taken.

Enforcement action

26. The Council issued a court summons on 3 June 2024, obtained a liability order on 24 June 2024, and referred Mr X’s account to enforcement agents the following day. However, the Council had received a PDF document from Mr X on 17 May 2024 advising he had moved out of Address A. Although this document was not indexed until 18 June 2024, the Council was nonetheless in possession of this information before enforcement action was finalised.

Good administrative practice requires councils to act on correspondence in a timely way, particularly where it affects the validity of enforcement proceedings. Even accepting some delay in processing, the fact that the Council still had not updated the address by late June 2024 meant that enforcement documents were sent to an address it had reason to believe was no longer correct. This was fault.

The Council has explained that the case was referred to enforcement agents as the court process had already commenced and no payments had been made towards the arrears. However, this does not override the obligation to ensure that recovery action is pursued on the basis of accurate and up-to-date information. Councils are expected to keep systems under review and prevent action that risks disproportionate harm, particularly when new contact details are on record.

The fault caused injustice to Mr X. He had attempted to update the Council about his change of address and the enforcement action went ahead despite this. He was required to contact the enforcement agent and the Council multiple times, visit the Council in person, and ultimately seek a refund of the £75 compliance fee. These events could likely have been avoided had the Council processed the address update promptly and paused enforcement while clarifying the situation.

The Council did eventually withdraw the enforcement action and arrange refunds and revised payment terms. However, these steps were reactive and only taken after Mr X took further steps to escalate the matter. By this stage, the fault had already caused avoidable distress and inconvenience. I consider this has caused an injustice which has not yet been remedied by the Council. I address how this injustice should be remedied in the following section

Complaint handling and remedy

31. The Council apologised for the delays and arranged for a refund of enforcement costs and removal of court fees. These steps went some way to addressing the financial impact of its faults.
32. However, the Council did not offer any recognition for the distress caused by the delays or misdirected enforcement action. Mr X also spent time and effort trying to resolve the matter. The Council’s remedy offer was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, which recommends a symbolic payment where fault has caused distress and inconvenience. Mr X experienced avoidable distress, time and trouble in correcting the Council’s errors, which are not addressed by the Council’s current remedy.

Handling of portal access issues

33. Mr X reported problems accessing the Council’s online portal in May 2024. The Council did not respond until 18 June 2024 and provided only limited follow-up thereafter. It did not appear to investigate or escalate the IT concerns or offer practical support. This was poor service.
34. The Council later explained that the portal did not allow payments and that other methods, including phone and bank payments, were available. It also said it had not received similar complaints from other service users. However, I have not seen evidence this information was clearly or proactively communicated to Mr X at the time he reported difficulties. While it remained open to Mr X to use other payment methods, the Council’s limited support contributed to his frustration. However, on balance, I am not persuaded the Council’s actions in this respect meet the threshold for a finding of fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. To remedy the injustice identified in this case, the Council will:
1. Apologise in writing to Mr X for the delay in updating his address, the continuation of enforcement action after it had received his updated details, and the poor communication that followed.
2. Pay Mr X £250 to recognise the avoidable distress, time and trouble caused by its failure to update his address promptly, the subsequent enforcement referral, and his effort in pursuing resolution.
3. Review its procedures for indexing and processing customer correspondence containing changes of address or other time-sensitive information. This should include checking how such correspondence is identified, actioned, and cross-referenced with ongoing recovery action, and whether staff have clear guidance on prioritising these updates. The Council will take steps to ensure that changes of address are consistently actioned in time to prevent avoidable enforcement action or inappropriate escalation.
36. The Council will complete action points a and b within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision, and action point c within two months of the Ombudsman’s final decision. The Council will provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. Although the Council eventually withdrew enforcement action and removed associated costs, it had enough information to prevent escalation at an earlier stage. Its failure to act on this led to avoidable distress, time and trouble for Mr X. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman