Summary: Mr X complains about the way a bailiff company, acting on behalf of the Council, has treated him. We find the bailiffs failed to recognise Mr X’s vulnerability and find fault with its communication with Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise, remove a compliance fee and make a further payment for the distress Mr X suffered and his time and trouble in making this complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way a bailiff company, acting on behalf of the Council has treated him. He says the company failed to consider his financial circumstances, mental health and vulnerability when setting up a payment arrangement. He also says the agency sent him two text messages which he found threatening.
2. Mr X says this caused him significant distress and anxiety.

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 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

5. I have considered the information provided by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the bailiffs.
6. I sent Mr X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and invited their comments. I considered all comments before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. If you fall behind with council tax payments, the council may apply to the magistrates' court to make a 'liability order'. This is a court order that states that you owe council tax but have not paid it. The council will also add on any court costs they have had to pay.
8. Once the council has gained a liability order in a person’s name, they can take further action against them. This is called 'enforcement action' and can include using bailiffs to try and remove their goods or make deductions from earnings or from benefits. The Council can decide which type of enforcement action to use. However, they can only use one type of enforcement action at a time for each liability order that they have in a person’s name.

Legislation

9. The law does not define what a vulnerable person is. The Ministry of Justice has issued ‘Taking Control of Goods: National Standards’ (“the Standards”) which set out the responsibilities of creditors and bailiffs. The Standards say -

• Creditors should remember that bailiffs act on their behalf and they are accountable for the bailiff’s actions. They must consider if the debtor is vulnerable and if so, agree clear protocols governing the approach the bailiff should take. Examples of a vulnerable debtor include someone who is seriously ill or disabled.
• Bailiffs must not:
• Falsely imply action will be taken when it cannot legally be taken.
• Falsely imply a course of action will ensue before it is possible to know whether such action would be permissible.
• Falsely imply action has been taken when it has not.
• Falsely imply a debtor refusing entry to a property is an offence.

10. If a bailiff identifies a vulnerable debtor, they should alert the creditor and ensure they act in accordance with all relevant legislation. Bailiffs should be aware that vulnerability may not be immediately obvious.

What happened

11. I have set out a chronology of which covers key events. It is not meant to show everything that happened in this case.

Background

12. In January 2022 the Council instructed bailiffs to enforce a liability order issued by a Magistrates Court for unpaid business rates from 2011.
13. The bailiffs wrote to Mr X and said that he must contact them within seven days to pay the debt in full or agree a payment arrangement.
14. On 31 January 2022 Mr X contacted the bailiffs. Mr X said he was unemployed and suffering with mental health issues for which he was taking medication. Mr X said he could not pay the debt in full. The bailiffs offered Mr X a three-month payment arrangement. Mr X said he had a job interview in the next few days and agreed to the payment arrangement.
15. Mr X was required make an initial payment of £167.05 by the end of the day. The next payment was due on 28 February 2022. Mr X raised concerns about making the initial payment and the bailiffs suggested he ask his friends and family if they could assist with funds for the initial payment. The bailiffs agreed to call Mr X back later that day.
16. Mr X’s account was marked as ‘vulnerable’ due to his mental health, and he was advised that he could send in supporting medical documentation which would be added to his file. The bailiffs sent Mr X a letter confirming the payment arrangement.
17. Mr X made an initial payment of £115.00 and agreed to make the outstanding payment by 4 February 2022. The bailiffs agreed and advised that Mr X’s account would be put on hold.
18. On 3 February 2022 the bailiffs sent Mr X a text message which said “urgent – broken arrangement…” and asked Mr X to make contact. Mr X did not contact the bailiffs. The next day Mr X received another text message requesting contact and payment.
19. On 8 February 2022 Mr X made a payment of £60. The bailiffs sent Mr X a text message confirming the payment but said there was no payment arrangement in place. Mr X called the bailiffs and said he was not happy, that the text messages had caused him unnecessary stress and he was already suffering with severe mental health problems.
20. Mr X complained to the bailiff company. He said he was unhappy he had received a broken text message. The bailiff company responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage one and two of its complaints procedure. It did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. Mr X remained unsatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

21. Mr X says the bailiffs failed to consider his mental health and financial circumstances when setting up the payment arrangement. It is not for us to decide who is vulnerable, but to decide if a decision that someone was or was not arrived at properly.
22. When Mr X first contacted the bailiffs his vulnerability status was recognised, and his account updated. The bailiffs set up a repayment plan that took into consideration Mr X’s mental health. Mr X was invited to send the bailiffs supporting medical documents. I understand that Mr X has not sent this information. I find no fault with the actions taken by the bailiffs here.
23. Mr X’s details were updated to show he was unemployed, and he agreed to the payment arrangement at the time. However, when Mr X told the bailiffs he could not afford to make the initial payment, it should have assessed Mr X’s financial circumstances in more detail. The bailiffs should also have considered the impact on Mr X’s mental health in pursuing him for the full initial payment on the same day. There is no evidence that it did this. This was fault and caused Mr X an injustice in the form of distress.
24. Mr X says the bailiffs sent him a threatening text message about a broken payment arrangement. In response to our enquiries the Council has confirmed the bailiffs did not put Mr X’s account on hold nor was the initial payment date amended to 4 February 2022. This resulted in Mr X receiving an automated text message from the bailiffs. This was fault and caused Mr X an injustice in the form of distress and uncertainty.
25. It is disappointing that the bailiffs did not identify this fault as part of its complaint investigation. If it had, then the issues may have been resolved sooner and Mr X would not have been put to the time and trouble in pursuing his complaint with the Ombudsman.
26. Where we find an injustice, we try in our remedy proposals to place people in the place they would have been but for the faults. Where that is not possible, we use our Guidance on Remedies which recommends a symbolic payment on a scale of between £100 and £300 in recognition of the injustice caused.
27. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries the Council said the bailiffs have agreed to apologise to Mr X and remove a compliance fee of £75.00 in recognition of the distress caused.
28. I do not consider the distress, time and inconvenience in this case was prolonged. However, I also do not consider the Council’s removal of the compliance fee is enough. I recommend the Council apply a reduction of £100 to Mr X’s debt.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
1. apologise to Mr X;
2. remove the £75.00 compliance fee;
3. apply a reduction to Mr X’s debt of £100 to reflect the distress, time and inconvenience the faults caused him; and
4. ensure staff are reminded about the importance of amending payment dates on accounts.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have found fault by the Council causing an injustice to Mr X. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman