Summary: Mr X complained about the actions of the Council and its Enforcement Agent in recovering outstanding business rates, stating they were unreasonable. He said he did not receive prior notices about the debt or told what action would be taken. We do not find fault with the actions the Council took to recover the money or the conduct of the Enforcement Agent who visited Mr X’s company. There was fault for how it incorrectly calculated its fees which were added to the outstanding amount. The Council has refunded the difference which remedies the injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council, and the actions of the enforcement agency working on its behalf, in how it recovered unpaid business rates from his company. Specifically:
1. He disputes he should pay the enforcement agency fees as he says he did not receive prior notices or communication about the outstanding amount owed before an enforcement visit was made; and
2. He also raises concerns about the conduct of the enforcement agent who visited.
2. He says this has caused distress, frustration, and embarrassment, and the enforcement fees are unjustified.

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. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
5. 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

6. I offered Mr X the opportunity to discuss this complaint with me originally and I did not receive a response.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses, information, and bodycam footage it provided. I noted there was roughly 30 minutes missing footage over four videos. I have not requested this as, based on what I have been able to see, it is my view the missing footage is unlikely to be significant. Paragraph 30 expands on this.
8. 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

Relevant law and guidance

9. Business rates is a local tax on business premises and local authorities are responsible for collecting these.
10. The law says that councils can serve a document about billing or enforcement by delivering it in person, leaving it at the person’s proper address, or sending it by post to their proper address. Proper address is taken to be the last known address. There is no need to use registered or recorded post. Unless the contrary is proved, a document is deemed to have been served by post when it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. (Local Government Act 1972 (Section 233); Regulation 35(2) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992; The Interpretation Act 1978 (Section 7))
11. After issuing reminders, a council can apply to the court for a liability order for non-payment of business rates. A liability order gives the local authority legal powers to take enforcement action to collect the money owed. This can include using bailiffs.
12. The government has issued minimum standards for bailiffs and enforcement agents, “Taking control of goods: National standards” 2014. This document states that enforcement agents must carry out their duties in a professional, calm and dignified manner. They must not act in a threatening manner when visiting the debtor.
13. Under the ‘Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013’, Section 8 says Notices of Enforcement must be given:
• by post addressed to the debtor at the place, or one of the places, where the debtor usually lives or carries on a trade or business;
• by fax or other means of electronic communication; or
• by delivery by hand through the letter box of the place, or one of the places, where the debtor usually lives or carries on a trade or business.
14. The ‘Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014’ sets out the fees a bailiff can charge when recovering debt and the three stages they must follow:

• The Compliance Stage – a bailiff must issue a notice of enforcement seven clear days before they take control of the goods. The fee for this stage is £75.
• The Enforcement Stage – this stage starts once a bailiff has made a first visit. At this visit they can take control of the goods. Once they have done this, they must give the debtor a notice. The fee for this stage is £235. If outstanding debts are more than £1,500, bailiffs can charge a further 7.5% of the amount outstanding over £1,500.
• The Sale or Disposal Stage – this stage starts once a bailiff has taken control of the goods. They must then allow seven clear days between the removal of goods and their sale. In this time a bailiff must value the goods and send a copy to the debtor. The fee for this stage is £110.

What happened

15. I have summarised below the key relevant events. This is not intended to be a detailed account of every communication or everything that happened.
16. In March 2022, the Council issued an annual bill to Mr X’s company’s address for the business rates for the 2022/2023 financial year.
17. Between May and July, it sent a reminder, a final notice, and a summons notice. In August, a Liability Order was granted by the Magistrates Court. This included fees and an amended remaining balance as £30,000 payment had been made by Mr X’s company in June.
18. At the end of August, the Enforcement Agent (“EA”) working on the Council’s behalf, sent a Notice of Enforcement (“NOE”) to Mr X’s company address asking for payment. The amount included an additional £75 compliance fee for the EA.
19. At the end of September 2022, an EA attended Mr X’s company’s address. The whole owed balance for the financial year 2022/2023, including the EA fees, was paid later that day.
20. A week later, Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council about the actions of the EA towards him and his staff members. He said his company had never received any communication about this debt or summons for non-payment from the Council or the EA. He complained the EA would not accept any negotiation and demanded immediate full payment be made. He said the EA was unreasonable in not offering any flexibility or considering the company would have certainly acted if it had received the notices. He also raised concerns the EA could not show the NOE as evidence during his visit.
21. Mr X added his company was on an agreed payment plan with the EA for the previous financial year 2021/2022. There was a final payment due later that month for this. He said he would pay the rest but would take off the EA fees that had been added to the 2022/2023 debt, leaving this amount outstanding.
22. The Council did not uphold his complaint. It acknowledged Mr X said his company did not receive any notification of the liability order or enforcement, but it could not comment on whether or not these reached the address. It outlined:
• it had correctly sent out the required notices in line with legislation, obtained a liability order, then instructed the EA to recover the payment.
• the law does not require an EA to show a copy of a NOE when visiting an address. The EA showed his ID card and written authorisation to act on behalf of the Council which is what is legally required.
• it was satisfied with the actions and conduct of the EA. It said he was polite and courteous and explained the enforcement process clearly.
23. Mr X escalated his complaint to Stage Two. The Council did not uphold his complaint and its position remained the same. It offered an apology as the EA visit clearly caused distress to him and his members of staff. But it maintained its view that his conduct was reasonable and professional. It asked that Mr X paid the remaining amount he owed for the 2021/2022 payment plan.
24. In January 2023, Mr X complained to us.
25. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed Mr X had since paid the outstanding amount. It sent me bodycam footage of its EA.
26. I asked for a detailed breakdown in its EA fees. The Council said it had identified an error in the way the fees had been calculated and concluded the fees it had included were higher than they should have been. It offered Mr X’s company a refund of the difference: £1,887.
27. In response to my draft decision, Mr X noted the last character of his company’s postcode on the 2022/2023 bill, notice, reminder, summons, and NOE was wrong. The 2021/2022 NOE had the correct postcode.

Analysis

28. Mr X complains the enforcement fees are not justified as he said his company never received any communication about the debt and action that would be taken. The Council and EA said the required notices and reminders had been sent. I recognise Mr X’s view, and I have seen copies and they were sent within appropriate timeframes.
29. I have considered Mr X’s comments further about the postcode. Whilst it can be said the 2022/2023 communications were not properly addressed, our decisions are made on the balance of probabilities, and we do not need to be ‘certain’ to reach a conclusion. The mistake was not so significant that it would certainly affect their delivery. The rest of the address was correct, and the Council confirmed no post was returned to it undelivered. It is more likely than not the post could have been delivered and considered appropriately served in line with legislation. I do not conclude non-receipt of them was fault by the Council.
30. From the bodycam footage I have been able to view from the EA’s visit, I agree with the Council’s view that his conduct was reasonable, and I have not seen evidence he was aggressive. He did acknowledge Mr X said he had not received any notices but explained this did not prevent him from carrying out his role. He clarified his position was to recover the outstanding money and how he would do that. He was firm but polite. I recognise it was an uncomfortable situation, but I have not seen any significant concerns relating to his behaviour or overall conduct that I would conclude were fault.
31. I am satisfied with the Council’s complaint responses and explanations given to Mr X’s points of complaint. It showed evidence of how its actions were in line with procedures and legislation.
32. The EA was entitled to charge its fees when visiting Mr X’s company. It acknowledged it made a mistake in how it calculated them. This is fault. I have seen its explanation for this and how it has now made its revised calculations.
33. In my draft decision I recommended the Council should refund the amount it overcharged in its EA fees to remedy the injustice to Mr X. It sent me evidence it has done this. I have therefore removed this recommendation before issuing my final decision as I am satisfied it is already complete.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I found fault with the Council, and it has carried out action to remedy the injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman