Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to tell bailiffs that he had cleared his council tax liability. This resulted in an unnecessary call and visit by bailiffs. We found there was fault by the Council that warrants and apology and a payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to tell bailiffs that he had paid the council tax he owed for a property he had sold. This resulted a group of bailiffs visiting his house and seeking to seize assets. This was distressing for Mr X and his wife, who are both elderly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

4. I spoke to Mr X and considered information he provided. I considered the information the Council provided about the complaint.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Local Government Finance Act 1992 gives local authorities the power to levy and collect council tax. If someone does not pay the council tax, the Council can ask bailiffs (also referred to as enforcement agents) to collect the debt. Bailiffs charge fees which also must be paid.
7. When bailiffs are instructed, the fees they can charge are set out in Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 (the regulations). There are three stages to debt recovery; the compliance stage, the enforcement stage and the sale or disposal of goods stage.
8. At the compliance stage, before a bailiff can visit a property they are required to send a notice of enforcement. A fee of £75 will be charged when they send this. If a bailiff receives no response in seven days, they can move to the enforcement stage.
9. Bailiffs can charge further fees when they visit a property at the enforcement stage of the process and (if it is necessary) when they remove goods.

What happened

10. Mr X’s company owned a property. The Council issued a council tax bill for 2021/2022 in early March 2021. The first instalment was due on 5 April 2021. However, council tax was not paid. The Council issued reminders, and eventually, a summons for unpaid council tax. The summons added a cost to the bill.
11. Mr X explained he was away from the property for some time, and this was why he did not respond.
12. In July 2021 the Council appointed enforcement agents to collect the amount owed. The enforcement agents wrote to Mr X in July sending a notice of enforcement. When doing so, the enforcement agents added a charge of £75 to Mr X’s debt.
13. On receipt of the notice of enforcement, Mr X contacted the Council. He advised it that his company had sold the property concerned at the end of April 2021 and sent evidence of this. Mr X asked for a revised bill to be issued for the period 1 April to 29 April. A few days later he asked the Council to put a hold on enforcement as he was being hassled to pay the arrears.
14. Towards the end of August the Council sent Mr X a revised bill. This included costs of £132.50 which related to the summons and liability order. Mr X paid the revised bill, in full, immediately.
15. A short while after Mr X paid the bill he received an early morning telephone call from the enforcement agents. He explained that a revised bill had been issued and paid. The enforcement agent told Mr X he would contact the Council to confirm what had happened. Mr X heard nothing more, until several weeks later when four enforcement agents visited Mr X’s home. Mr X explained that he and his wife are both elderly and his wife has a serious heart condition. He disputed that anything was owed, given he had paid the Council’s revised bill in full. Mr X told us both when calling and visiting him, the enforcement agents were seeking to recover the full council tax for the year, over £2,000.
16. Mr X complained about the visits from the bailiffs as he had paid the full amount the Council asked for in the revised bill. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council told him the £75 fee had been incurred correctly, before Mr X made contact and settled the bill.
17. The Council apologised that it had not updated the bailiffs to tell them about the change to Mr X’s account and the payment of the revised bill. The Council stated it had now done this on 10 November. However, the £75 fee to the bailiffs was still due. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint stated that because Mr X had made contact with the Council, and not the enforcement agents, as advised in correspondence sent to him, the enforcement agents were not aware that Mr X had cleared the council tax liability. It stated Mr X should also have paid the additional £75, non-payment of which led to the enforcement agents contacting him.
18. The Council acknowledged the enforcement agents visit would have been distressing, but it stated it was made clear in earlier correspondence that Mr X should correspond with the enforcement agents directly. It reiterated that the £75 was correctly charged and Mr X should make contact with the bailiffs to pay it. The Council noted that an additional charge of £235 for the enforcement visit had been removed.

What should have happened

19. Mr X was locked down due to the COVID-19 pandemic and was unable to pick up post at the property his company owned. However, Mr X accepts that he did not respond to the council tax bill and reminders. As the Council received no response to its correspondence, the initial action it took to obtain a summons and to start recovery action was one it was entitled to take.
20. Because the Council was entitled to take recovery action, the £75 fee was also properly charged by enforcement agents at the compliance stage of the debt recovery process. This was charged before Mr X let the Council know of the change in his circumstances.
21. However, there was fault here. When Mr X made contact with the Council to explain his property had been sold, the Council issued a revised bill. When doing so the Council made no reference to the separate fee still payable to the enforcement agents. Moreover, the Council did not make the enforcement agents aware that the debt they were chasing had been revised and had been repaid in full. Consequently, enforcement agents telephoned Mr X and visited him, on both occasions seeking to recover the full year’s council tax, over £2000, when Mr X had cleared his liability for 2021/2022. The failure to make it clear to Mr X what was due in total, and the failure to update the enforcement agents with key information, was fault.
22. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint suggested that Mr X was at fault for contacting the Council rather than enforcement agents. I do not consider this was an appropriate response. If the Council did not consider it should engage with Mr X while enforcement agents were dealing on its behalf it could have said so. Rather than doing this it acknowledged the change of circumstances and issued a new bill. In doing so, it had responsibility to update the enforcement agents and to clearly explain to Mr X what amount was due. In addition, contact with the Council was necessary in these circumstances. Mr X was explaining a significant change in circumstances that required a new council tax bill to be issued, significantly reducing his liability.
23. Had the Council explained to Mr X that in addition to his liability and summons cost, £75 was also due to enforcement agents, and if it had informed the enforcement agents of the significant change in liability, it seems more likely than not that the £75 fee would have been repaid by Mr X. This would have avoided the confusing and distressing further contacts with enforcement agents to attempt to recover a debt which had been repaid.
24. As the £75 fee was correctly charged by the enforcement agents, it needs to be paid. However, to recognise the time, trouble and distress caused by the avoidable enforcement agent call and visit I recommend the Council pays Mr X £150. If Mr X agrees, the Council may pay the £75 fee for Mr X and reduce the payment to him to £75. The Council should also review how it deals with contacts from the public in circumstances such as these to prevent further issues of this nature.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. Within four weeks of my final decision the Council agreed to:
26. Pay Mr X £150 to recognise the time, trouble and distress caused by the avoidable enforcement agent call and visit. (If Mr X agrees, the Council may pay the £75 bailiff fee for Mr X and reduce the payment to him to £75.)
27. Review why officers did not communicate Mr X’s contact and revised liability with enforcement agents and why officers did not make clear to Mr X that he would need to pay a £75 fee to bailiffs separately to clearing the revised council tax liability. The Council should carry out any appropriate training or policy updates that are required to ensure appropriate communication with the public and enforcement agents in such circumstances in future.

Back to top

Final decision

28. There was fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman