Summary: There was some fault by the Council. On one occasion, it failed to apply a discount that would have reduced Mr F's Council Tax liability. However, there was no fault in how the Council tried to recover unpaid tax or how bailiffs working on its behalf, acted. The Council has already apologised and adjusted the account and does not need to take further action.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains the Council:
• Failed to administer the empty home discount in 2018 and 2019;
• Wrongly instructed bailiffs to recover arrears from his tenant’s property and from his home address;
• Sent reminders, court paperwork and bills to the wrong address despite knowing that he did not live there;
• Failed to respond to his contact asking for clarification of the account; and
• Was misleading in its responses to his complaints.
2. Mr F also complains that the bailiffs acting on behalf of the Council:
• Tried to force entry by pushing a guest to their house who opened the door to the bailiff;
• Told his neighbour that they were a bailiff;
• Visited his home despite knowing that there were small children living there; and
• Failed to respond to his complaints about this made directly to the bailiff.
3. Mr F says the Council’s actions have caused distress and frustration and means he has had to deal with bailiffs who should not have been instructed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered the information provided by Mr F and discussed the issues with him. I considered the information provided by the Council including the Council’s files and body camera footage from the bailiff’s attempts to recover the debts. I also considered the law, the Council’s exemptions policy and the Civil Enforcement Association Code of Conduct (the Code). Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. The Council confirmed it had no comments on the draft and Mr F has not responded.

Back to top

What I found

Council tax law and procedure

7. Before a council can pursue someone for council tax it must usually send a bill with their name on. If the person does not pay then the council can issue a reminder and if there is no payment, the full balance for the year becomes payable. The council can then ask the magistrates court to issue a summons and there will be a hearing in court to establish the person is liable. The court can then issue a liability order. The fixed costs of the court action are added to the debt.
8. A council can then enforce the liability order using a variety of methods. A common recovery method is to instruct bailiffs to collect the debt. The bailiff can also add costs to the amount due.
9. The Code for bailiffs says that every effort must be made not to discuss the nature of the visit with anyone other than the debtor, although this might be relaxed when speaking to a partner or close relative.

The Council’s Empty Home Council Tax Discount

10. The Council’s scheme only applies a discount where the home is empty and unfurnished. The discount is one-month council tax and then the full amount is payable. If it is furnished the Council does not apply a discount. In the absence of any information from the owner, the Council will look at the history of a property to decide whether it can tell if the property is furnished or unfurnished. If it cannot tell, then it will not be able to reduce the tax payable.

What happened

11. Mr F owns a number of properties. His complaint concerns two properties and three council tax accounts.

Property X Account One

12. Property X is a ground floor flat with a communal entrance. The flat was empty for a period in the council tax year 2017/2018. The Council could not tell whether this was furnished or unfurnished and so it did not apply a discount. Its records said that Mr F owned the property but had no other address for him on that account. The Council sent a council tax bill, reminder and summons to that address.
13. Mr F then let the property to a tenant. The Council was notified by the incoming tenant on 28 November 2017 and so it ended Mr F’s liability for council tax for that property, and sent a bill. The tenant said the property was let unfurnished, but the Council says its usual practice is only to award a discount if the account holder claims it.
14. The tenant did not have an alternative address for Mr F and so the Council continued to correspond with him at the property address. When the account remained unpaid, the Council instructed a bailiff company to collect the debt. The bailiff sent two letters to Mr F at the property address in January 2018. No letters were returned.
15. The Bailiff company had Mr F’s contact details and so emailed him. Mr F told the company by email and telephone that he had paid this debt, but it seems there was confusion about which account had been paid. A bailiff called at the property. Mr F was not there. The bailiff’s body camera footage is not available because at that time the company did not keep the footage any longer than a year. The bailiff has given a statement. He says he left a sealed envelope with a neighbour who had opened the communal front door to the block of flats. He asked the neighbour to let him know he had called.
16. Mr F told the Council it had not applied the discount. The next day the Council overturned its decision not to apply a discount on the information Mr F gave it. It returned the account from the bailiffs, applied the discount and waived all the court costs and fees, leaving a balance of £41. The Council’s email to Mr F confirming this asks whether he has a better correspondence address.

Analysis

17. There was no fault in how the Council handled the billing or the recovery of council tax on Account One. Although Mr F was entitled to a discount because the property was unfurnished and empty, I have not seen any evidence that he told the Council that before it asked bailiffs to recover the debt, or that he claimed the discount.
18. On that account the Council only had the property address to contact Mr F. None of the letters were returned and so it assumed he was receiving these but not paying. The Council followed the right process, sending reminders and a summons, and eventually referring the matters to bailiffs.
19. The bailiffs work on behalf of the Council and so I can investigate the bailiffs’ actions. I have considered whether the bailiff acted within the Code. He identified himself as an enforcement agent to the person answering the communal door and asked for Mr F. There is no evidence that he discussed the nature of his business with the neighbour.
20. When the Council had the right information from Mr F, it applied the discount. It took the view that this meant the liability order was not correct and so it returned the account from the bailiffs and waived the fees. There was no fault by the Council or the bailiff acting on its behalf.

Property X Account Two

21. Later in 2018, the property became empty again. The tenants had left the property but were still liable for rent and bills there for a month, and as the property was empty and unfurnished, the Council was able to apply the empty home discount to the last month of the tenants’ liability.
22. The Council then made Mr F liable for council tax as owner of the property. He had not given the Council an alternative address and so it sent the bills, reminders and summons to the property address. It had no contact from Mr F and so it got a liability order and asked bailiffs to collect the amount due.
23. The bailiff sent Mr F a text message. Mr F complained to the Council. It decided that it should have applied the discount, but that this would not actually reduce the amount owed because the one-month reduction had already been applied when the tenants had left.
24. However, the Council decided to recall the account from the bailiffs and waive the fees and costs. It asked Mr F to pay the balance. He asked the Council to pay compensation. It decided not to do so because it said that Mr F would have known he had some council tax liability and did not clarify matters with the Council or respond to demands and reminders.
25. Mr F did not pay the balance and so the Council again instructed the bailiffs to collect this. Mr F complained to the Council again and it reiterated that he owed the balance. At this stage, the Council decided that Mr F was sending a large volume of emails. In line with its policy, it decided that he could only contact the Council by a single email address. This would be dealt with monthly, but the Council would not respond to matters it had already addressed. It wrote to Mr F to confirm this and said the arrangement would be reviewed in six months. Mr F says he emailed the Council 37 times, but it did not reply. This was because the Council considered that it had explained that the balance was due and why.
26. The bailiff first visited to collect this debt at the property. I have watched the body camera footage of this visit. Here a neighbour of an upstairs flat opened the window. The bailiff asked for Mr F and the neighbour said he does not live there, and he does not have contact details. The bailiff told the neighbour he would leave a letter. The neighbour asked who he was, and the bailiff replied that he is an enforcement agent. The conversation ended and the bailiff left a letter for Mr F.
27. By the next visit, Mr F had given the Council his home address and the bailiff visited there on 8 January 2019. On this visit, Mr F’s cleaner answered the door. I have seen the body camera footage of this visit. The footage shows the bailiff told the cleaner that he was an enforcement agent and that he had come to take goods. He asked for Mr F, and asked if the cleaner was able to contact him. She attempted to contact his wife but could not and she left the property, shutting the door. The bailiff phoned Mr F to let him know he was at the property. The footage shows the bailiff left a letter at the door for Mr F. He understood the bailiff tried to force entry, but the footage is clear, and the bailiff did not do this. The bailiff did not try to enter the property, or ask to be let in and stood outside.
28. The bailiff visited the home address a further three times but only left a letter. Mr F paid the outstanding Council Tax of £41 but did not pay the fees. He complained to the Council and to the bailiff. The Council waived the fees and wrote to Mr F to confirm the account was paid in full.

Analysis

29. The Council acknowledges that it should have applied the empty homes discount, but this would not have reduced the amount owing and so did not cause an injustice to Mr F, or change what action the Council should have taken to recover the debt.
30. There was no fault in how the Council billed or attempted to recover the debt. It wrote to the address attached to that account, and for the correct amount. It did not reply to Mr F’s emails but had explained in advance that it would not do so and why. It had already addressed the issue in response to his complaints. The Council removed the fees and told Mr F how much was due. When Mr F did not pay this, it was open to the Council to recommence recovery action.
31. There was no fault by the bailiff acting on the Council’s behalf. I have carefully considered the video recordings and the statements sent by the bailiff. Although he did identify who he was on two occasions, he stopped short of discussing Mr F’s personal business with third parties, and so acted within the Code.

Property Y Account Three

32. Mr F also rented out property Y. The tenants moved out on 1 August 2018. The Council made Mr F liable and billed him at his home address. The Council acknowledges that its records show the property was unfurnished and so it should have applied the empty home discount at this point reducing the bill by one month. Mr F did not claim the discount or contact the Council.
33. A new tenancy started on 14 September 2018. The tenants did not move in until 28 September and so they claimed the Empty Home Discount from 14 September to 27 September.
34. The Council issued the bill, reminder, and summons to Mr F’s home address. The Council instructed the bailiff who visited three times, leaving a letter each time. Mr F telephoned the Council. The Council saw the tenants had claimed the discount but had moved in before the whole month had passed and so it applied the remaining days to Mr F’s account. Mr F paid the council tax and the Council waived the fees.
35. As part of this investigation, the Council has acknowledged that as the property was empty from 1 August to 13 September and council tax billed to Mr F, then he should have had the discount for the whole of August and the Council should not have given a reduction to the tenants. The Council has now applied the full month’s reduction.

Analysis

36. Mr F did not claim the empty home discount, but the Council had sufficient information to apply this. The Council has acknowledged it was at fault here and will remind staff to apply discounts to non-resident owners. This would have reduced Mr F’s liability, but he still owed some council tax which he did not pay. Mr F is a landlord and there is an expectation that he will keep up to date with the liabilities of his various properties, including claiming discounts. It is likely the Council would have always taken recovery action on the amount, even if it had applied the discount from the start, as no payment was forthcoming. There is no basis for me to recommend the Council do more to remedy its fault here.

In Summary

37. The Council acknowledges that it made two mistakes. It failed to apply the Empty Home Discount to Account Three when it had sufficient information to do so. This would have reduced Mr F’s liability. The Council also failed to apply the Discount to Account Two, but this would not have reduced Mr F’s liability.
38. It was not wrong to instruct bailiffs as the amounts were outstanding and it had issued bills, reminders and summonses to the addresses held on file.
39. The Council addressed Mr F’s complaints. It explained that it had restricted his contact and that it would not respond to his emails unless they raised new issues.
40. The evidence does not show the bailiff tried to force entry to his property. The bailiff acted within the Code and is able to say he is an enforcement agent when asked, and also able to visit properties where children live.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has remedied this, and no further action is needed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman