Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s enforcement agents are wrongly pursuing him for payment of its fees after he settled his debt with the Council in full. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the actions taken on the Council’s behalf.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council’s enforcement agents (bailiffs) illegally trespassed at his home, harassed him and threatened to take his car and other goods for non-payment of a debt he had already paid. He is also unhappy with the Council’s handling of his complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council obtained a liability order against Mr X for more than £4,500 in unpaid business rates in 2022. It referred the matter to its bailiffs to recover payment and the bailiffs wrote to Mr X at the “compliance stage” of the enforcement process to inform him of their involvement, adding a £75 fee to the amount owed.
6. Mr X contacted the Council to dispute the unpaid business rates and the Council agreed to reduce it to less than £2,000. Mr X contacted the bailiffs to discuss the matter but did not pay them; instead he paid the outstanding rates directly to the Council. This left a balance of £75 on the account which Mr X believes the bailiffs have no legal basis to enforce.
7. The Council and its bailiffs dispute Mr X’s position and consider the £75 remains payable. The bailiffs have therefore taken action to pursue the debt but have agreed to waive charges for their visits at its “enforcement stage” as a gesture of goodwill.
8. Mr X believes that because the bailiffs’ fees are not enforceable the bailiffs should not have taken further action to recover them. He accuses the bailiffs of trespass, harassment and fraud, as well as breaches of the Taking Control of Goods National Standards and the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
9. I understand the basis of Mr X’s argument but Regulation 17(1) and (2) of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 allow for the recovery of bailiff fees even where the debt they were instructed to recover has been paid. We cannot therefore say the Council’s bailiffs are wrong about their ability to enforce payment of their fees. So while Mr X has clearly paid the unpaid business rates there is not enough evidence of fault in the actions of the Council’s bailiffs taken on its behalf. Allegations of criminal behaviour such as trespass, harassment and fraud are also more appropriate for investigation by the police.
10. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or its bailiffs.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman