Summary: There is no evidence that of fault in how enforcement agents, working on behalf of the Council, made the decision to enter Mr C’s property to attempt to recover a debt owed by a family member.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains that enforcement agents, working on behalf of the Council, entered his property unlawfully. Mr C says:
• The agents entered his property to recover a debt belonging to a family member that has never lived at his address. I shall refer to the family member as Mr Y.
• The agents refused to provide details of who they were and why they were in the property.
• On a subsequent visit to a different address, agents clamped Mr C’s vehicle, placing the onus on him to provide proof of who it belonged to.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated matters relating the enforcement agents visit to Mr C’s property. I have not investigated matters relating to Mr C’s vehicle being clamped, for reasons explained at the end of this decision statement.

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 received from Mr C; and
• reviewed and considered information received from the Council and enforcement agency; and
• reviewed body worn camera footage from one of the agents; and
• considered relevant legislation; and
• spoke with Mr C about his complaint.
6. I also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. My Y had an outstanding council tax debt. The Council wrote to Mr Y but received no response. It therefore made the decision to instruct an enforcement agency to collect payment.
8. The enforcement agency wrote to My Y and received no response. It subsequently used an external agent to run searches on Mr Y in order to identify his address.
9. The enforcement agency concluded, as a result of these searches, that there was a high likelihood that Mr Y was living at Mr C’s address. It’s enforcement agents subsequently attended Mr C’s address.
10. Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (the Schedule) gives enforcement agents the power to enter premises where they reasonably believe a debtor lives.
11. I am unable to divulge the contents of the search results, but having reviewed them I am satisfied that their contents would have given reason to believe that Mr Y lived at Mr C’s address.
12. Body worn camera footage shows the agents entered the property from an unlocked door. Agents found documents containing telephone numbers of Mr C and his wife which they called.
13. The agent that made the calls explained who he was and who he worked for. He said he could only divulge details of the debt to Mr Y.
14. The footage shows that both Mr C and his wife tell the agent that Mr Y did not live at the property. The agents subsequently called the Council to find out who paid tax at the property, upon checking their systems the Council found evidence which suggested Mr Y lived at a different address.
15. Both agents left the property and met Mr C’s wife by the entrance. The agent showed her his ID and court documents. The agent again explained he could only divulge details of the debt to Mr Y.
16. I have found no evidence of fault in how the enforcement agents acted upon entering the property. The agent who spoke to Mr C and his wife provided his name, his companies name and explained they were in his property to collect a debt in relation to Mr Y.
17. I note that upon speaking to Mr C, the enforcement agents would not divulge details of the debt. However, they explained that this is because the debt did not belong to Mr C and they were exercising caution in order to avoid breaching Mr Y’s confidentiality regarding his personal information.
18. Under the Data Protection Act 2018 & General Data Protection Regulations the Council have a duty to ensure personal data is handled securely. It is for this reason I do not find fault with the decision by the agents, not to divulge details of the debt to Mr C or his wife.
19. In response to my draft decision, Mr C also complained that one of the agents referred to being in possession of a warrant, when in fact it was a liability order. However, I do not conclude that this caused Mr C a significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there is no evidence of fault in how the Council or agents dealt with the matter.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

21. I have not investigated matters relating to the clamping of Mr C’s car. This is because this event happened on a separate occasion, after Mr C had raised his complaint with the Council.
22. The law says the Ombudsman can only investigate issues raised in complaints, once the Council has had the opportunity to respond to the complaint. Based on the information seen, I am not satisfied the Council has had this opportunity.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman