Summary: Mr X complained that a Council’s Enforcement Agent wrongly attended his home in respect of another person’s council tax debt. We found there was no fault in the actions of the Enforcement Agent, the Enforcement Agency, or the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained a Council’s Enforcement Agent (EA) wrongly attended his home in respect of another person’s council tax debt. This caused Mr X worry and inconvenience, and caused distress to his mother-in-law who was in Mr X’s house when the EA visited.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, sections 24A(1)(A), and 25 (7) as amended)
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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened. We do not need to be ‘certain’ to reach a conclusion.
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 considered evidence provided by Mr X, the Council, and the Enforcement Agency (the Agency), as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of my decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Enforcement agents - taking control of goods

8. If a council has a liability order from the magistrates’ court it can ask an enforcement agent) to visit a person’s property and take goods worth up to the amount of council tax debt and costs.
9. An enforcement agent can only take control of goods that belong to the person who owes the money and which are on their land or on the public highway.

What happened

10. I have summarised below the key relevant events, based on the accounts of all parties and the evidence provided to me. This is not intended to be a detailed account of every communication or everything that happened.

The Council’s account

11. The Council passed a council tax debt to the Agency to pursue on its behalf.
12. The Agency sent the first notice of enforcement (NOE) to the debtor, care of her mother’s address, on 5 April 2024. The debtor’s mother called the Agency to explain that her daughter did not live with her. She gave a partially incorrect address for her daughter. The address she gave was that of Mr X.
13. Mr X and the debtor lived on the same road. The number of the debtor’s flat was the same as Mr X’s house number.
14. The Agency sent a second NOE addressed to the debtor, at Mr X’s address, on 15 April.

Mr X’s account

15. Mr X told us he did not recall receiving the letter of 15 April. He said that he quite often received mail that was addressed to the debtor’s address – because of the similarity between them – and his usual practice was to return it to the sender.
16. Mr X said that, while he was away on holiday, his mother-in law was visited at his home by the EA, who was looking for someone who did not live at his property (the debtor).
17. He said that, the following day, the Agency posted a letter saying it was going to repossess items from his house within 48 hours. Mr X said he then spent all day trying to contact the Council to prevent this action from taking place. This caused him injustice because it put him to time and trouble for a whole day of what was only a short break.

The Agency and EA’s account

18. The EA visited Mr X’s property on 12 June. The contemporaneous computerised log states that the EA spoke to no-one, and that someone was present in the home but did not answer the door. He therefore posted a letter in a sealed envelope through the door of the property.
19. The EA said that, as he returned to his vehicle, a woman came out of Mr X’s house and explained that the correct address for the debtor was in the block of flats on the same road. The EA said that the woman who came out of Mr X’s house told him this kind of addressing error occurred often. The EA was satisfied with this explanation. He updated the address on the account and left Mr X’s house to pursue the debtor at their flat.
20. There was no further visit on 13 June, which was not a working day for the EA. The Agency stated that, even if the EA had been able to carry out a repeat visit to Mr X’s house, he would not have done so, because he had updated the account to display the correct address, that is the debtor’s flat.

The complaint

21. Mr X complained to the Council that he and his wife had lived at their property since it was built and, as they had no council tax arrears, the Council should not have passed their address to the Agency. He requested a full explanation and compensation for his ruined holiday.
22. The Council responded at Stage 1 of its complaint procedure. It said that it used the Agency to collect unpaid council tax as a last resort. It said that it had not passed arrears in Mr X’s name to the Agency, and that the Agency had attended Mr X’s property in respect of a third party (the debtor). It said that the Agency used its own methods to trace debtors, which had suggested that the debtor was located at Mr X’s address. The Council apologised for the distress caused by the Agency and emphasised that the Agency had been told that the debtor did not live at Mr X’s address as soon as Mr X had contacted the Council.
23. Mr X escalated his complaint, stating that he considered the Council to be at fault for instructing the agency and passing his details on to them, causing distress.
24. The Council responded at Stage 2 of the complaint procedure, explaining that the Agency had been provided with the incorrect forwarding address (Mr X’s address) by a family member of the debtor, not by the Council. A NOE was sent to that address. No response was received from that letter, and no letter was returned to the Agency as incorrectly addressed. As a result, recovery action escalated to a property visit. When the Agency was told the debtor did not live at the property and they had the wrong address, all actions were immediately stopped.
25. The Council apologised that Mr X had needed to take time out of his holiday to resolve the matter, and said it appreciated the distress that had been caused by this incident. The Council said it was working with its enforcement agents “to ensure additional checks are put in place before recovery agents move to property visits.”
26. The Stage 2 response said that the error had occurred as a result of unreliable information received by the Agency, before concluding: “we can only compensate for errors created by the Council. If you wish to raise this matter with [the Agency] for their comments, please contact them via their complaints email”.

Analysis

Events prior to the enforcement visit

27. I have considered Mr X’s complaint that the Council passed his address to the Agency. I am satisfied that this did not occur. The Council passed responsibility for recovering the debtor’s unpaid council tax debt to the Agency; it was the Agency that decided how to establish the debtor’s whereabouts.
28. Mr X suggested that the electoral register and council tax database should have been checked to establish the debtor’s address, and who was resident at his address. The electoral register is partial – not everyone is registered to vote, and if they are, the information is not necessarily up-to-date. Council tax records show who is liable to pay council tax, not who is living at a property, so adult children or lodgers do not feature. When agents have to trace addresses, they use other sources.
29. In this case, the Agency had a “last known address” for the debtor, to which they sent the first NOE. This prompted the debtor’s mother to contact them with a more up-to-date address. That this turned out to be incorrect was not fault on the part of the Council or the Agency – when a council or its agents are given an address for someone, they assume it is in good faith. They will only make checks if the address turns out to be wrong. If the Council chooses to implement “additional checks” “before recovery agents move to property visits”, that is a matter for the Council, but the fact that no additional checks were carried out in this case is not fault.
30. I have seen evidence that a NOE, in the debtor’s name, was sent to Mr X’s address on 15 April. Although Mr X does not remember receiving that letter, I consider it more likely than not it was delivered. Mr X therefore had an opportunity to prevent the EA’s visit by returning the letter to the sender. The Agency confirmed that the letter was not returned to it undelivered.

The events of 12 and 13 June 2024

31. In the absence of any information suggesting the address was wrong, it was not fault for the EA to visit the property on 12 June and, when the door was not answered, to post a letter through the door.
32. I have considered whether a further visit took place, or whether a further letter was posted through Mr X’s door, after the EA had been informed of the debtor’s correct address by Mr X’s mother-in-law on 12 June.
33. There is no evidence from the Agency’s digital log that Mr X’s property was visited, or any further enforcement correspondence sent to it, after 12 June. The entries in the digital log are consistent with the EA’s account that he amended the address to that of the debtor immediately. The fact that the EA does not work on Thursdays (confirmed by his manager) is further evidence that no visit took place on 13 June.
34. Mr X provided me with a photograph of part of a single letter, which did not include an addressee name or a date. In the absence of other evidence, the most logical explanation is that this was the letter that was delivered by hand by the EA on 12 June. Our decisions are made on the balance of probabilities, and we do not need to be ‘certain’ to reach a conclusion. On this basis, I find that no further visit occurred, and no further correspondence was posted, after the Agency had been informed of the debtor’s correct address. And so, I find the EA, working for the Agency on behalf of the Council, acted without fault.

Complaint handling

35. I have considered the way in which Mr X’s complaint was handled by the Council.
36. Our Good Practice Guide on “Managing complaints in contracted and commissioned services” includes: “Where an organisation commissions a third party to provide services we consider the actions of the third party as if they were actions of the organisation. This means organisations keep responsibility for these third-party actions, including complaint handling, no matter what the arrangements are with that party.” I have found no fault in the actions of the Agency in this case, and therefore no injustice that may warrant a remedy, but the Council should take responsibility for the actions of the Agency in other cases, and should follow the Guide in future.
37. Our Complaint Handling Code includes: “Where an organisation’s complaint response is handled by a third party (e.g. a contractor) or independent adjudicator at any stage, it should form part of the two stage complaints process set out in this Code. Individuals should not be expected to go through two complaints processes.” We expect the Council to follow the Code in future.

Back to top

Decision

38. I have concluded my investigation with a finding of no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman