Summary: Mr Y complains that an administrative error by the Council meant that his Council Tax case was wrongly passed to enforcement agents, who made two unnecessary visits to his previous address. Mr Y says this caused embarrassment and distress. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint. The Council will offset £150 against Mr Y’s debt for the avoidable distress that its actions caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I will call Mr Y, complains that an administrative error by the Council meant that he received two avoidable visits from enforcement agents at his place of work.
2. Mr Y says this caused him embarrassment and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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

5. During my investigation, I have:
• Considered Mr Y’s complaint and discussed this with him by telephone;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• Consulted the Ombudsman’s ‘Guidance on Remedies’; and
• Issued a draft decision and invited comments from Mr Y and the Council before making a final decision. Both parties confirmed they had no comments to make.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council contacted Mr Y in January 2018 seeking payment of outstanding Council Tax for a previous address. Shortly after receiving the letter, Mr Y contacted the Council to set up a repayment plan to clear the debt.
7. Due to an administrative error, the start date for the plan was entered as 25 December 2019. Mr Y was unaware of this error at the time.
8. Mr Y then contacted the Council in March 2018 to provide details of a new forwarding address. The Council did not update its systems until May 2018.
9. The error with the payment date meant that Mr Y’s case was wrongly passed to enforcement agents for debt recovery. As the Council had not passed on the details of Mr Y’s new address, the agents wrote to Mr Y’s old address.
10. The agent’s records show it wrote to Mr Y at his old address in July and August, and when it received no response it visited the address on 16 August 2018. The notes show that there was no answer and the agent spoke to nobody during their visit. The agents left a letter at the property to notify Mr Y that they had visited.
11. The agents continued to write to Mr Y’s old address. When the agency received no response, it again visited on 8 October 2018. The notes show the agent talked with the new occupier who spoke very little English.
12. Mr Y collected post from his previous address and discovered the agents had made two visits. He immediately called the Council to query the purpose of the agency’s involvement. At this point the Council realised its error and contacted the agency, asking it to close its file and to make no further contact with Mr Y.
13. Dissatisfied with the Council’s actions, Mr Y raised a formal complaint. The Council accepted that its administrative errors meant that his file was wrongly passed for recovery. The Council offered to pay £25 to Mr Y, which is the cost of one month’s instalment.
14. Mr Y refused the Council’s proposed settlement and approached the Ombudsman. He seeks a complete settlement of his outstanding debt as compensation for the distress caused.

Was there fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Mr Y?

15. The Council has already accepted fault in this case and has proposed a settlement which it feels is an appropriate remedy for the injustice Mr Y experienced. As the fault and injustice in this case has already been established, what remains for me is to consider whether the remedy offered is suitable.
16. Mr Y has explained that the address where the agents visited is residential accommodation attached to his current place of work. He says he suffered embarrassment because colleagues would have known about the debt as a result of the agent’s visits.
17. The agent’s notes show the first visit resulted in no answer. However, on the second visit the new occupier answered. It seems probable at this point that the agent would have asked the occupier about Mr Y’s whereabouts. The agency had also been posting letters to the wrong address which the new occupiers may have had access to. This was avoidable and due to fault by the Council.
18. I therefore find that the unnecessary involvement of the enforcement agency would have caused Mr Y avoidable distress. However, I do not agree that this should be remedied with a payment of £489.50, which I understand to be the balance of the outstanding debt at the time of the agent’s visits in October 2018.
19. This would not be in accordance with the Ombudsman’s ‘Guidance on Remedies’ which suggests the following:

“Payments for distress associated with unnecessary court or bailiff action will usually fall in the ‘modest’ range of £100 to £300. But distress may be greater if action continues for more than a few weeks or includes removal of goods, or if the complainant is particularly vulnerable”

20. Given the embarrassment and inconvenience Mr Y experienced, it is my view that the Council’s proposal of £25 is not sufficient. Following my recommendation, the Council has agreed to pay £150 to remedy Mr Y’s injustice. This payment will be offset against any outstanding debt that Mr Y has with the Council.

Agreed action

21. Within four weeks of my final decision the Council will offset £150 against any outstanding debt owed by Mr Y. This is to remedy the distress and time and trouble caused by its administrative error.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice for the reasons explained in this statement. The above agreed action, in my view, appropriately remedies the injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman