Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council used an enforcement agent to recover council tax. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s use of an enforcement agents to recover Council tax he owes. Mr X says the Council or agent:
• Failed to stop enforcement action once he disclosed his vulnerabilities
• Sent threatening, misleading and disproportionate communications
• Failed to verify he owned a car before threatening to take it
• Continued enforcement action while he had a live complaint
2. Mr X also complains the about the Council’s complaint handling.
3. Mr X says the continued enforcement action has negatively impacted his mental health and wants the Ombudsman to investigate the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate 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 continue 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. I considered the relevant statutory guidance.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X is in arrears with council tax, and the Council got a liability order to recover the tax. The Council uses an enforcement agent (EA) to recover the tax, who sent Mr X notices of enforcement and payment reminders. The EA also visited Mr X’s property.
9. Mr X then told the Council he is a vulnerable person. The Council paused enforcement action for 14 days, to allow Mr X to prove his vulnerability. Once the time elapsed with no proof provided, the Council resumed enforcement action. Councils have a duty to recover tax, and there is no law or guidance that says the Council must stop recovery action indefinitely because of a verbal disclosure of vulnerability. The Council has showed it considered Mr X’s vulnerability. So, we are unlikely to find fault with the Council for continuing recovery action.
10. I have reviewed the enforcement correspondence that was sent to Mr X, and I have seen no evidence of fault in the content. If Mr X finds correspondence with the Council difficult, he could appoint another person to do this. Ultimately, however, he has a responsibility to pay, and the Council can tell Mr X what may happen if he does not.
11. The Council has explained how the EA did verification checks before threatening to take control of his car. If, however, the EAs were to wrongly seize a car that did not belong to Mr X then it is the owner, not Mr X, who would suffer injustice.
12. Mr X complained to the Council about the recovery action. The law does not prevent a council from continuing recovery while a dispute is ongoing. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council for doing so.
13. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to investigate the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman