Summary: Miss X complains the Council took recovery action which resulted in her car being immobilised for a council tax debt she had already paid. The Council told Miss X the balance on her council tax account was nil but did not say there was still a warrant with the enforcement agents and that further action could be taken. Miss X incurred further costs when her car was clamped which she could have avoided if the Council had explained the situation fully. A suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X is agreed.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council took recovery action which resulted in her car being immobilised for a council tax debt that she had already paid.
2. Miss X says she was inconvenienced when her car was clamped and she could not use it. She also incurred extra costs as a result of the enforcement action taken in February 2019.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Miss X’s council tax account fell into arrears in 2017. The Council sought a liability order and then passed the case to enforcement agents to recover. The agents sent Miss X a Notice of Enforcement on 3 September 2017. This notice warns the debtor the agents could visit and remove goods if the debt is not paid.
7. Miss X contacted the agents and agreed a repayment plan. Miss X did not make payments in accordance with the agreed plan. She left the property in October 2017 and did not provide a forwarding address. Miss X moved to live with family and so was not liable for council tax at the new address.
8. The enforcement agents were unable to trace Miss X after she left her previous property. A note on her account shows the arrears on her account were written off on 22 October 2018 after a 49 week period when there was no trace or contact with Miss X. The Council wrote off the account balance of £178.98 but did not write off the costs. There is nothing to suggest the Council wrote to the enforcement agents to inform it of the write off and to recall the warrant.
9. Miss X emailed the Council on 12 February 2019 asking it to confirm the balance on her account. The Council replied saying the balance was nil.
10. On 25 February 2019, an ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) vehicle spotted Miss X’s car parked on the street. The enforcement agents clamped the care at 06:09 am. When Miss X went to her car later that morning to take her child to school she found the car clamped. Miss X phoned the enforcement agent to explain the debt had been cleared. The enforcement agent explained there was no evidence of this on the system.
11. Miss X made a payment to the Council of £178.98 to clear the debt on her account. She asked the Council to notify the agents the debt had been paid and to release her car from the clamp. The Council says its council tax system was offline at this time to allow it to upload the annual billing information. The system remained offline until 5 March 2019.
12. On 8 May 2019, the enforcement manager decided to remove the clamp from Miss X’s car. The agent had a new address on file for Miss X if further recovery was required and discussions were ongoing about the debt. At this time the outstanding money owed by Miss X was to the agents for their fees. Nothing was owed to the Council.

Analysis

13. Miss X argues that she should have been notified by the Council when it decided to restart recovery action. She had confirmation in February from the Council that the balance on her account was nil. She was therefore shocked when her car was clamped without further notice that recovery action had been reinstated.
14. The information provided by the Council indicates it “wrote off” the debt in October 2018. It altered the balance showing on the account to nil. As a result, when Miss X contacted it in February 2019, the Council’s system showed a zero balance and it told Miss X she owed nothing.
15. In response to my enquiries, the Council says the record of Miss X’s account showed the account remained live with the enforcement agent. It says the liability order remained in place and the debt was left in trace mode with the enforcement agent.
16. I accept that once a liability order is obtained there is no time limit on when the Council can take recovery action. Therefore, I cannot say it acted unlawfully. However, the Ombudsman is not just concerned with whether a council acts within the law. The Ombudsman is concerned with administrative process and I am satisfied there was administrative fault in this case.
17. The Council clearly told Miss X, before her car was clamped, that the balance was nil. The information did not include any indication the debt was still with the enforcement agents and that it could be reinstated. If the debt was in fact in trace mode as stated by the Council, why did it not seek information from Miss X about her current address and say it would reinstate the debt. The Council’s response to Miss X on 19 February stated only her balance was nil. I consider the Council was at fault for not fully explaining the situation, if it still intended to try to recover the debt from Miss X.
18. While I cannot know with any certainty why Miss X contacted the Council on 12 February to enquire about her council tax debt, it is possible she would have entered into a payment plan with the Council if it had told her there was an outstanding balance. I take this view because Miss X did subsequently accept she owed money to the Council and she paid the amount in full to the Council.
19. Miss X incurred further costs when the enforcement agents clamped her car on 25 February. This meant the recovery action moved to the enforcement stage and the agents charged an additional £235. I take the view, on balance, that if the Council’s response to Miss X’s enquiry had explained her debt was not written off and that further recovery action could take place without warning and incurring further costs, that Miss X would have acted differently and these further costs could have been avoided.

Agreed action

20. To remedy the fault identified above, the Council will, within one month of my final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X;
• Pay the fees owed to the enforcement agents on behalf of Miss X; and
• Pay Miss X an additional £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused when she was unable to use her car as it was clamped.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the action I have recommended. These appropriately remedy the injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman