Summary: The Ombudsman discontinued his investigation into this complaint about the conduct of enforcement agents in pursuing a Council Tax debt. This is because the majority of the complaint is outside his jurisdiction, and he could not add anything to the Council’s investigation of the remaining points.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr D.
2. Mr D complains about a visit by enforcement agents acting on the Council’s behalf. He says:
1. he was not liable for the Council Tax debt the agents were seeking to enforce;
2. the Council failed to make proper enquiries before sending the Council Tax debt to the enforcement agency;
3. the agents forced entry to his father’s house and assaulted him;
4. the agency did not take his father’s vulnerability into account;
5. the agents did not show identification;
6. the agents “shouted” in the street Mr D would go to prison, breaching his right to confidentiality; and
7. the agency has refused to disclose body-worn video camera footage to him or to the police.
3. Mr D says he suffered whiplash from the alleged assault and the incident has affected his mental health, causing him to experience anxiety about a possible further visit from enforcement agents.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
7. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I reviewed the information and documents provided by Mr D and the Council. I spoke to Mr D about his complaint. I also sent a draft copy of this decision to both parties for their comments. I have considered all comments before making my final decision.
9. I have considered the relevant legislation and statutory guidance, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

Legal background

10. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 cover both the way councils collect payments of council tax and the way councils can recover council tax debt.
11. The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and associated regulations cover the way bailiffs may recover debts.
12. The council tax bill for the year is due on the 1st April. A council will usually collect payment through monthly instalments. If any instalment is missed the council will send the liable person a reminder. If a payment is still not made or a further payment missed, then the entire outstanding balance will be due (that is the full amount for the rest of the year).
13. To use the various powers available to it to recover unpaid council tax, a council has to apply to the Magistrates Court for a liability order against those it believes are liable. Once a council has obtained a liability order it can take recovery action.
14. A liability order gives a council legal powers to take enforcement action to collect the money owed. This can include taking deductions from benefits, getting an attachment of earnings (by which deductions are taken directly from earnings by an employer and passed to the Council) or using bailiffs. The Council can decide which recovery method it wishes to use but it can only use one method for one liability order at one time.

Key events

15. Mr D owned a property in the Council’s area, which he was letting to a tenant. The tenant vacated the property, and it was then repossessed by a bank in October 2018. The Council believed Mr D was liable for an unpaid element of Council Tax on the property, and obtained a liability order against him. It then passed the debt to an enforcement agency.
16. The enforcement agency traced Mr D to his father’s address in a different part of the country.
17. Mr D says the agency visited twice. After the first visit, he contacted the Council to complain, and raised the fact his father was disabled and vulnerable. He also says he told the Council the property had been repossessed and he was not liable for the Council Tax debt.
18. During the second visit, Mr D says the agents forced entry into his father’s house and assaulted him, leaving him with whiplash. He says the agency took no account of his father’s vulnerability, did not show identification to prove who they were, and breached his confidentiality by disclosing details of the debt in public.
19. Mr D reported the alleged assault to the police. He also complained to the Council. As I understand it, the enforcement agents also reported to the police they had been assaulted by Mr D and his father.
20. The Council said it would not investigate the allegation of assault, as it was with the police, nor could it consider a personal injury claim under its corporate complaints procedure. However, it upheld Mr D’s complaint about the agents failing to adhere to their code of conduct with respect to his father’s vulnerability.
21. As a remedy, the Council agreed to waive the Council Tax debt, and also offered him £506 to reflect his distress and inconvenience. The Council also said it has asked the agency not to assign the two agents in question to Council-commissioned work again.
22. Mr D referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said £506 was an insufficient remedy for his injury. He also complained the agency had not disclosed the body-worn video camera (BWVC) footage to him, or to the police.

Back to top

Analysis

23. There are various aspects to Mr D’s complaint. However, I propose to discontinue this investigation, for the reasons set out below:

• The liability for Council Tax was decided in the magistrates’ court. In line with paragraph six above, the Ombudsman cannot overturn or investigate a court decision. In any case, the Council has now waived the debt; and so, even if the Ombudsman could investigate this, there is no injustice left to remedy.
• The alleged assault was the subject of a police investigation, which is not a matter the Ombudsman can investigate. Even if it were not, assault is a criminal offence, and the Ombudsman cannot investigate such matters.
• Claims of personal injury are a matter for the courts. The Council has correctly said it cannot investigate such claims through its complaints procedure, and the same is true of the Ombudsman. The £506 remedy the Council has offered is not compensation for injury.
• The Council has upheld Mr D’s complaint about his father’s vulnerability. The remedy of £506 is the most the Ombudsman would recommend for this, and so there is nothing an investigation would add.
• The Council has already taken steps to ensure the two agents involved are not assigned work on its behalf again. This is the most the Council can do with respect to the agents’ own conduct, as the Council is not their employer.
• In line with paragraph seven above, complaints about a failure to disclose information (in this case, the BWVC footage) are better addressed by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), to which the Council has directed Mr D. The Council says the agency has now disclosed the footage to the police; but either way, the police has its own powers to obtain information, and it would not be for the Ombudsman to intervene in this process.
• Similarly, any concern Mr D has about a breach of confidentiality by the agents would be better addressed by the ICO.

24. Taking this together, continued investigation by the Ombudsman could not achieve anything further here, and so is not appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I discontinued my investigation into this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman