Summary: Mr C and Ms D complained the Council did not do enough to support their disabled son with housing. We upheld the complaint, finding the Council at fault for its response to correspondence from their MP in June 2019. We also found more should have been done to consider Mr C’s potential vulnerability when the Council instructed agents to collect council tax debt. These faults caused injustice to both parents including that of distress. The Council accepts these findings and has agreed action it will take to remedy the injustice, set out at the end of this statement. We make recommendations at the end of this statement for how the Council can remedy this injustice.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Mr C’. He complains on his own behalf and that of his former partner ‘Ms D’. Mr C and Ms D complain about the following:

• that over several years the Council failed to provide housing suitable to meet the needs of their disabled son (whom I will call ‘child E’) who died in August 2020;
• that while coping with the needs of their disabled son the Council unreasonably pursued both Mr C and Ms D for arrears of council tax, including through the use of enforcement agents (bailiffs).

2. Mr C says as a result of the above Child E had to live in a house that was unsuitable to meet his needs for several years. This caused distress to him and Ms D which was compounded by the actions of enforcement agents collecting council tax arrears from him and Ms D.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a Council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Mr C’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information he provided including that gathered in telephone conversations;
• information provided by Ms D when I also spoke to her by telephone;
• any correspondence between Mr C, Ms D and the Council referring to the matters covered by this complaint that pre-dated our investigation;
• further information provided by the Council in reply to my enquiries;
• any relevant law, guidance or policy as referred to below, including guidance published by this office.

8. I also gave Mr C, Ms D and the Council chance to comment on two draft decision statements which set out my evolving thinking about the complaint. I took account of any comments made before finalising this statement.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

Housing

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
10. A person may be considered homeless if they do not have accommodation which it would be reasonable for them to continue to live in. (see section 175 of the Act)
11. The Code says there is no simple test of reasonableness and authorities should judge each application on the facts of the case (see paragraph 6.23 of the Code of Guidance). There are many factors which could be relevant to deciding what is reasonable to occupy in looking at an individual case. But the Code says that one factor can be the physical characteristics of a property. It says that it would not be reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy accommodation if the physical characteristics of the accommodation were unsuitable for the applicant. For example, because they are a wheelchair user and access is limited (see paragraph 6.39 of the Code of Guidance).
12. The Courts have also held that when considering the needs of disabled persons and deciding if they are homeless, councils will need to consider the relevance of the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty.
13. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
14. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

15. The Council’s current housing allocation policy was introduced in 2019, which replaced an earlier version of the policy issued in 2013. Common to both versions the Council allocates housing to households based on a banding system, with the banding given to each household set according to need. ‘Band A’ is the highest banding for those households in the highest need, followed by ‘Band B’, ‘Band C’ and so on.
16. The policy explains the Council carries out an initial assessment when households joint the housing register which may be followed by a specific medical or welfare assessment. Households must confirm each year that they want to remain on the housing register. Letters awarding priority should contain details of how households can appeal their banding.
17. In the policy the Council says that when assessing medical priority it will “assess the impact of the housing situation on the applicant and their household’s health and the priority to be awarded on health grounds”. The Council awards Band A priority to households who, among other things, have a critical medical and/or welfare award. It awards Band B to those who, among other things, have a high medical or welfare award. The Council has an independent medical adviser who it may consult in deciding on priority, but it does not do so in all cases. The Council says where appropriate it will also consider making enquiries of others to help establish medical need such as GPs, health visitors and so on.
18. The Council does not publish advice on how it distinguishes a critical from a high medical need. But in comments made to me during this investigation it has said that it awards a Band A priority for critical health needs where there is a “situation at point of crisis or a life limiting medical condition is being affected by housing conditions”.
19. On its website the Council advises that it has an officer who works in its Private Sector Housing service who can assist with minor adaptations to properties including items such as grab rails. For larger adaptations the Council will consider in the first instance any recommendations made by Occupational Therapists from Essex County Council. In some cases, these recommendations can lead to payment of grants to support major adaptations to properties.

Council tax

20. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 cover both the way councils collect payments of council tax and the way councils can recover council tax debt. The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and associated regulations cover the way enforcement agents (also known as bailiffs) may recover debts.
21. A council tax bill becomes due on 1 April. A council will usually collect payment through monthly instalments. If the liable person does not pay an instalment the council will send a reminder. If payment is still not made or a further payment missed, then the entire outstanding balance will become due (i.e. the full amount owed for the whole financial year).
22. To use the various powers available to it to recover unpaid council tax, a council has to apply to the Magistrates Court for a liability order. Once a council has obtained a liability order it can take recovery action.
23. A liability order gives a council legal power to take enforcement action to collect the money owed. This can include taking deductions from benefits, getting an attachment of earnings (by which deductions are taken directly from earnings by an employer and passed to the Council) or using enforcement agents. The Council can decide which recovery method it wishes to use but it can only use one method for one liability order at a time. Although a council can ask enforcement agents to collect more than one liability order against a debtor at the same time.
24. So long as the council has obtained a liability order an enforcement agent has the legal power to attend a person’s property and seize goods to the value of a council tax debt. This is subject to various legal restrictions; including that they have given due notice to the person in debt about their involvement. Enforcement agents can add fees for their involvement. In all cases this will be a minimum £75 and will increase by £235 if an agent visits in person.
25. An enforcement agent may not take control of goods if the debtor is a vulnerable person and they are the only person present.
26. 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 agents. The Standards say that creditors should remember that enforcement agents act on their behalf and they are accountable for the agent’s actions. They must consider if the debtor is vulnerable and if so, agree clear protocols governing the approach the agent should take. If necessary, creditors must be prepared to take control of the case at any time (see paragraphs 15 & 16 of the standards).
27. If an enforcement agent identifies a vulnerable debtor, they should alert the creditor and ensure they act in accordance with all relevant legislation (see paragraph 30 of the standards).
28. The standards say that those who may be vulnerable include people with a disability or who are seriously ill (see paragraph 77 of the standards).
29. The Council has a policy for recovery of council tax debts which goes through the various stages of recovery as I have set them out above. It says that where someone has lost the opportunity to pay their council tax in instalments and an account is in arrears it will only make a new payment arrangement if the debt can be repaid in six months. Although in comments in reply to this complaint the Council has said it can agree a longer repayment arrangement in exceptional circumstances. The policy says that where the Council identifies a vulnerable debtor it may suspend or stop recovery action for the debt owed. The policy has a short section explaining how mental illness can impact on a person’s ability to work, manage relationships and function in everyday society.
30. The Council has a service level agreement with enforcement agents who collect outstanding debts on its behalf. This says that if an enforcement agent identifies “significant vulnerability” then the agent should refer the debt back to the Council for advice.
31. The enforcement agent used by the Council has its own policy for identifying and dealing with vulnerable debtors. It defines a vulnerable person as one who has difficulty engaging with or understanding the recovery process; or where the recovery process causes distress to that person. It says those who are potentially vulnerable can include those with a mental health illness.
32. The policy explains that where an enforcement agent identifies a vulnerable or potentially vulnerable debtor they will refer their case to a member of the agent’s welfare team. That team will then decide how the agent will proceed. The policy does not refer to any circumstances where the agent may refer the debt back to the Council for collection.

Background to the complaint

33. At birth, Child E was born with a disability. He was frequently in hospital, often far away from the Council area, and underwent several surgical procedures sometimes being in hospital for many weeks. Both parents travelled to see E in hospital and Ms D would sometimes stay with him in hospital for several nights at a time.
34. Mr C and Ms D have been separated since April 2018. But during the events covered by this complaint they lived within close walking distance of each other. Ms D rented a two storey house from a private landlord and had three other children living with her. Before Mr C and Ms D separated, this was also Mr C’s home. After the couple separated Mr C moved to a private rented flat.
35. Child E’s bedroom was upstairs in Ms D’s house. Because of his disabilities E could not climb stairs and so had to be carried. The property was unsuitable for a stair lift because of the type of stairs it had. Child E also struggled to access the garden because of a step down from the rear of the property. He was at frequent risks of falls when doing so.
36. Mr C described to me the difficulties caused to him and Ms D caring for E. Mr C said both he and Ms D suffered sprained ankles and Mr C also suffered wrist and back pain as a result of carrying E up and down stairs.
37. Mr C says the house also suffered from a rat infestation at one point. This caused particular concern for E, as he had a compromised immune system. Mr C and Ms D worried rat urine could adversely affect this.
38. Ms D’s house was also located near a junction to a main road. Both Mr C and Ms D worried that dust and air pollutants could also adversely affect E’s health.
39. Both Mr C and Ms D have suffered with their mental health. They have both been diagnosed with panic and anxiety disorder. Mr C also suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.

The complaint about housing priority

40. Mr C and Ms D went on the Council’s housing register in 2016, with their application backdated to December 2015. The Council placed their application in Band B.
41. In February 2017 the Council received an Occupational Therapy report prepared by a therapist working for Essex County Council. This concluded Mr C and Ms D’s home was unsuitable for E as he needed his own room downstairs. It also found the home was not suitable for adaptation.
42. The Council has a record that it received a report from Mr C about a rat infestation in June 2017. It says that it notes show the issue was being addressed by the landlord’s agent and so it had no need to become involved. It has no further record of contact about this issue
43. Around this time Mr C made a complaint to this office about the family’s housing need. We discontinued investigation in July 2017 after Mr C indicated he did not wish to pursue his complaint further. This was after the Council agreed to look again at the family’s circumstances.
44. The Council says that in September 2017 it made an offer of accommodation to the family. This was rejected after Mr C and Ms D visited the property with the Occupational Therapist, who advised them this property was also unsuitable for E’s needs.
45. The Council says that after this time no suitable property became available for rent in Mr C and Ms D’s (and later Ms D on her own) areas of choice. It says the household needed a three bed ‘parlour type’ house – a term that refers to one having two downstairs reception rooms, one of which could be converted into a bedroom for E.
46. The Council said that in total a further 27 three bedroom houses became available for rent between October 2017 and July 2020 in areas of choice for Ms D. Eighteen of those were awarded to households whom were either owed a duty of rehousing as being homeless or were transferring from other Council accommodation. So, these properties were allocated separately to those households on the housing register.
47. Of the remainder, four were awarded to households with a higher housing priority than Ms D (i.e. in Band A or in Band B but having been on the housing register for longer). The remainder were considered unsuitable as they were either not parlour style houses or could not be adapted; in one case being of the same type as that offered in September 2017. I note here that of the 22 properties either allocated to households not on the housing register or in a higher priority banding from Ms D, the Council says these were largely unsuitable also for a household with a disabled child, which would require significant adaptations.
48. The Council says at no point did Ms D or anyone else acting on her behalf request a review of the banding award given to her housing priority. It says at no point was it told E’s condition was life-limiting. The Council provided me with a copy of its housing notes which are very brief and contain no information which contradicts this. Although I did see a note from June 2020 that Ms D told the Council E’s health was deteriorating and he needed a major operation.
49. Mr C also provided me with some background papers, and I noted these included some correspondence on his and Ms D’s behalf from their local MP. He wrote to the Council in June 2019. In that correspondence the MP said: “re housing, [Mr C] stated that [Ms D] requires accommodation which is compatible with [E’s] needs. He stated [the County Council] assessed current accommodation approx. three years ago and advised the house was not suitable for their needs and that various adaptations were necessary, however TDC have yet to put anything in place.”
50. In its reply to the MP the Council said Ms D’s household had “the highest medical assessment and banding we can place them in”. It said there were over 500 households waiting for a three bed property on the housing register and it could not say when one would become available. It said it may be able to help with a deposit for a move to another private rented sector property. It also encouraged Ms D to think about widening her area of choice.
51. Ms D’s MP wrote again in July 2020. In this correspondence the MP noted that E’s health had recently worsened. It said Mr C continued to believe the Council had ‘done nothing’ to improve the family’s housing situation.
52. In its reply the Council offered to review the family’s housing priority. It told me it did this because it considered the MP had alerted it to a change in circumstances, by advising E’s health had worsened. So, it asked for up to date information on E’s health needs. It asked Ms D to consider widening areas of choice for accommodation. It noted recent contact asking the Council to re-consider if the home could be adapted.
53. Child E died soon afterwards, in August 2020.

The complaint about council tax recovery

54. During its investigation of this complaint, the Council agreed to make a hardship payment of nearly £1000 to settle any council tax debts accrued by Ms C and Mr D which they incurred before April 2018. The chronology below therefore only considers events after this time.

Mr C’s council tax

55. After moving to his flat Mr C accrued arrears of council tax. He received council tax support (a means tested benefit which reduced his bill) and a discount for being the sole occupier. But this still left Mr C with council tax to pay. He accrued arrears for all years between 2018/2019 to 2021/22 totalling around £635 including some costs.
56. Over time the Council had asked enforcement agents to try and collect debts owed by Mr C. It explained that it only did this after Mr C failed to respond to bills, reminders and summonses.
57. An agent began attempts at collecting Mr C’s 2018-19 council tax arrears in October 2018. Between this date and January 2019, the agent recorded attempting several times to set up a payment arrangement with Mr C but without payments being made.
58. In February 2019, an enforcement agent noted Mr C might be potentially vulnerable on grounds of mental health illness. Its notes imply that it asked Mr C to provide information to confirm this. But that when this was not received the agents went on to ask Mr C to pay regularly towards his arrears.
59. Mr C did not do this and in April 2019 he spoke to the agents over the telephone. The notes of the call say that Mr C told the agent he was “not in a good place” and feeling suicidal. The agent said they would re-set the payment arrangement. Mr C made one payment but could not keep to this.
60. Between then and September 2019 the agent attempted contact with Mr C several more times, usually unsuccessfully. In October 2019 the agent recorded Mr C telling it how ill his son was and that he wanted to complain about the agent’s actions. He again referred to being in poor mental health and feeling suicidal. The agent put a temporary hold on Mr C’s account and said he “offered welfare”.
61. The agent continued attempts to contact Mr C regularly but was unable to make further contact. In December 2019 the agent returned the debt to the Council saying it could not collect it.
62. By now the agent was also being asked to collect a debt for the 2019/2020 council tax year. Between August and December 2019, it attempted collection alongside that debt for the 2018/19 financial year. However, it did not return the debt at that time.
63. The agent’s notes show they tried to visit Mr C again in March 2020 but had no answer. Shortly after a hold was put on collection of the debt because of the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ms D’s council tax

64. Ms D also has council tax arrears for the same years. Hers total around £4540 including costs. The Council advises that Ms D has also failed to respond to bills, reminders and summonses.
65. Since September 2018 the Council has instructed enforcement agents to try and collect some of these debts also. Initially Ms D entered a payment arrangement with the agent but could not keep to it. Between February and October 2019, the agent tried several times to visit Ms D at home but could not gain access. The agent returned the debt for the 2018/19 council tax year to the Council in October 2019 saying it could not collect it.
66. In February 2020 the agents were asked to begin collection of the arrears owing for the following financial year. The agents did not make contact with Ms D before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic when collection was put on hold.

My findings

The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction

67. I have considered the start date for my investigation should be April 2018. This is more than 12 months before Mr C’s current complaint to this office and so this must be considered a late complaint. However, I consider there are special reasons which justify investigation despite the passage of time.
68. We discontinued an investigation in July 2017 on advice from Mr C. I have seen nothing which disputes his account that he asked us to discontinue because the Council had agreed to look again at the family’s housing need. That it went on to do this appears illustrated by the offer of a house to the family in September 2017. It is again not disputed that offer was unsuitable. Nor is it disputed that afterwards the Council made no further offer of accommodation to the household including E, either before or after Mr C and Ms D separated in April 2018.
69. April 2018 therefore marked a watershed in the family circumstances. It was also now over six months since the Council’s last offer of accommodation. I consider from this point onwards it is therefore appropriate to review how the Council assessed the housing needs of Ms D’s household. And alongside that, what expressions of dissatisfaction it received from Mr C or Ms D about this matter. Mr C has explained that at no point did he or Ms D regard the Council’s efforts to find accommodation satisfactory. I have therefore approached the investigation on this understanding and with a view to establishing if the Council remained aware of this and what it did in response.
70. I consider the Council should have kept such records that an investigation is practical. I also take account that after E died in August 2020 there was an understandable delay in Mr C wanting to pursue his complaint.
71. However, this consideration on time means that I make no finding on Mr C’s complaint the Council should have done more when he alerted it to a rat infestation at Ms D’s house. Because the only record of this matter being raised with the Council is from June 2017.

The complaint about housing

72. I begin by noting that throughout the events covered by the complaint Ms D’s housing application had a Band B priority. I do not find any evidence that a property became available of the right type, in Ms D’s preferred location which she should have been offered based on this priority. I find the only three bed parlour-type houses which became available in her area of choice were given to households which the Council had decided had a greater priority for such housing. This was because they were either in a higher priority band; were in the same priority band but had been waiting longer; or they were prioritised as being homeless.
73. However, I consider this complaint raises wider questions about how the Council approached Ms D’s housing need. So, in considering if the Council was at fault, I also need to consider if Ms D’s application was in the appropriate housing band. In other words, should the Council have awarded the higher ‘Band A’ priority in view of E’s disabilities and the unsuitability of that accommodation, possibly after consultation with its medical adviser? I also need to consider whether the unsuitability of this accommodation for E should have led the Council to consider if the family were homeless and whether this would have made any difference to their situation. Third, whether the Council should have given any further consideration to adapting the property to make it more suitable for E’s needs; through its own private sector housing service or liaison with the County Council if the adaptations needed were significant.
74. I find that before July 2020, the Council did none of these things. In support of its approach, it can point to little evidence that Ms D or Mr C were making it aware of any continuing dissatisfaction with the housing priority awarded to Ms D’s application. There are no written requests direct from Ms D or Mr C asking it to review Ms D’s housing priority between 2018 and 2020. There are no notes on its housing records suggesting any such requests were made in person or by telephone. There is nothing to suggest the County Council who supported E with a social work service made any representations on behalf of the family.
75. However, I consider there was one opportunity missed by the Council to consider its options for providing more support to Ms D with housing. That came in June 2019 when the local MP wrote to it. The correspondence from his office may have been more explicit in asking the Council to review the household’s priority. I am also satisfied the response from the Council suggests that it did review Ms D’s application to the extent that it checked her existing housing priority and areas of choice. I accept the Council had no immediate reason to think the priority given to the household was wrong and the advice it gave on broadening areas of choice and receiving support for a move within the private rented sector was not inappropriate.
76. But even so, I do not consider the response went far enough. I consider the MP’s letter was clear in identifying that Mr C and Ms D saw E’s housing as unsuitable and was by clear implication, inviting reconsideration of whether any more could be done to assist them. And as I have listed above the Council did have options here. It could have invited evidence to consider if the family circumstances now justified a Band A award. It could have considered if there was any merit in assessing if the family were homeless. It could have explained more about adaptations policy and liaising with the county council. It could have considered if it had any duty under the Equality Act and the possible relevance of the Public Sector Equality Duty given E's disabilities.
77. I consider the Council should have done more, because while the MP’s correspondence was short on detail it knew already of the limitations of Ms D’s property and E’s disability. So, the Council knew E was growing older and it stands to reason that his needs and the demands placed on his parents as his carers may also have grown as a result.
78. I would not fault the Council had it failed to point out one or two of these matters. And it is not the case that we would expect it to always carry out a review of priority or invite a consideration of homelessness when it receives an expression of dissatisfaction with housing from a MP. But on the facts of this case, I make a finding of fault for its response to the June 2019 contact.
79. I note the Council offered a more constructive response when the MP contacted it again in July 2020, when the MP had provided more detail. It gave a commitment to review the family’s housing priority. But unfortunately, this came too late to be of help, with E passing away soon afterwards.
80. In considering what injustice arises from the mishandling of the June 2019 correspondence, I note the following:

• there can be no certainty that any review would have resulted in a Band A award. We cannot say that E’s health and its impact on the household was such in Summer 2019 the Council would have decided this. Any award would also have required co-operation from Ms D in providing information about E’s health and possibly support from the county council also;
• that while the Council may have given some consideration to whether the family was homeless on the grounds of suitability - it would not automatically follow that a more suitable property would have been found. First, the Council may have had grounds not to take such an application on the basis the existing property was not unreasonable to live in. Second, that an application may have resulted in an offer of support to move within the private sector. But this is not something Ms D is likely to have wanted as this was offered in June 2019 and not taken up. Third, that even if the Council accepted a duty to make an offer of accommodation that could only have come from the same limited pool of properties. There is no evidence that any of these were suitable for the family’s needs or could have been adapted before E died (as one possibly became available but only around three months before his death).
• that there is no evidence Ms D’s house could have been suitably adapted for E given this was ruled out some years before.

81. In which case I cannot conclude that Ms D and E remained in an unsuitable property for longer than need have been the case. Her injustice is therefore limited to the distress that will arise from the Council missing the opportunity to undertake some reconsideration of her housing need in June 2019. Mr C will also have experienced some distress from this.

The complaint about council tax

82. I have considered the collection of council tax from Mr C and Ms D in turn. But I note at the outset that in both cases arrears have accrued over several years and neither Mr C nor Ms D have been able to keep to repayment arrangements. I also note the Council will have sent many letters before their cases were passed to enforcement agents. We cannot criticise the Council for using its lawful powers to obtain liability orders in these circumstances. And having a liability order entitles the Council to consider using enforcement agents to try and recover the money it is owed.
83. I would have preferred to see a record the Council had also considered alternatives, in particular the use of an attachment of benefit order, which enables the Department for Work and Pensions to deduct an amount from some weekly benefits to pay for council tax arrears. But noting the age and size of the debts the Council would still want to consider alternatives. So, I think it unlikely that it would not have referred these debts to enforcement agents.
84. Once the debt reached enforcement agents however, Mr C’s contacts with those agents should have prompted the Council to reconsider. I find it concerning that the agent’s notes clearly show reference to Mr C being vulnerable or potentially vulnerable because of mental illness. Using the agent’s own definition of vulnerability, I note that Mr C demonstrated that he was not engaged with the collection process and that it caused him distress. He also cited causes of his illness, such as the pressures created by caring for E. Yet there is no record the agent and Council discussed the possibility of the enforcement agent returning the debt to the Council. Nor is it clear how any welfare checks carried out by the agent changed anything in its approach towards Mr C.
85. I find both the taking control of goods national standards and the council service level agreement with the enforcement agents should have led to such discussion. The lack of such discussion was fault.
86. In considering the consequences of this fault I think it more likely than not that such discussion would have led the Council to recall debts from the enforcement agent. And therefore, some of the distress Mr C experienced in dealing with enforcement agents after October 2019 would have been less.
87. The Council accepts this finding and I explain below the action it has agreed to remedy this injustice. In considering what was fair in terms of the scope of that action, I noted that in any event the agent returned one of the debts to the council in December 2019. While collection of the other was suspended following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. I also noted that even if the agents had returned Mr C’s debts sooner he would still have debt to the Council and have therefore further received communications from the Council about this matter.
88. Further I recognised the Council had already written off a large council tax debt owed by both Mr C and Ms D during its own consideration of this complaint.
89. Turning to the debts owed by Ms D, I again cannot find fault in the council placing those in the hands of enforcement agents. I note there appears to have been far less interaction between Ms D and the agents than there has been between those agents and Mr C. So, while I understand Ms D will also have experienced distress because of communications with those agents, I do not think that in this case those agents had reason to discuss returning the accounts to the Council. Because the notes of the communications with Ms D do not indicate they were made aware of any vulnerability, or the difficult circumstances faced by Ms D resulting from caring for E.
90. I understand from Mr C and Ms D that they believe agents have been aware in both their cases of the exceptional pressures they were caused while caring for E. There is some conflict therefore between their recollection and the agent’s notes. But unfortunately, this is not something I can resolve.
91. I also note that in common with Mr C's case, agents have not attempted any further recovery of Ms D’s debts since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. While I cannot make recommendations in Ms D’s case as I have in the case of Mr C, I would still welcome the Council taking the same approach (see paragraph 92d) below). As I note the considerable debt owed by Ms D and its long-term nature. It will not be in her interests or that of the Council if the cycle continues of non-payment, followed by extra charges and increasing debt that is never reduced. I would urge Ms D therefore to take advantage of any opportunity offered to come to a new sustainable payment arrangement with the Council and look at any opportunity to see if there are ways to reduce her liability through applications for council tax support and so on.

Back to top

Agreed action

92. The Council accepts the findings set out above. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr C and Ms D it has agreed that within 20 working days of a decision on this complaint it will:
1. write to both Mr C and Ms D with an apology accepting the findings of this investigation;
2. pay Mr C £200 in recognition of the distress caused by the events covered by this complaint; £100 of this is to cover the distress caused by the Council not taking the opportunity to review E’s housing conditions in June 2019. The other £100 reflects the unnecessary distress caused to Mr C by his council tax debts not being returned to the Council for collection following enforcement agents being alerted to his vulnerability;
3. pay Ms D £300 in recognition that the Council did not respond more comprehensively when it reviewed E’s housing conditions in June 2019 and offer the choices set out in paragraph 77. The award takes account however that it is unlikely taking those steps would have led to a move to more suitable accommodation for E;
4. refer Mr C for debt counselling to a debt advice service and agree to place a hold on any collection of outstanding council tax debt until such time as that advice service has had chance to meet with Mr C and assess that he is receiving the correct benefit entitlement; what he can afford to pay towards any council tax arrears (as well as ongoing liability); or whether he may be advised to seek a Debt Repayment Order (DRO). In addition, the Council may wish to signpost Mr C towards any policy it has offering relief, or write-off, of council tax debts in exceptional circumstances that he may also discuss with a debt adviser. The offer of debt advice should remain open for two months.
93. In addition, the Council has agreed to learn wider lessons from this complaint. Within 40 working days of a decision on this complaint it will arrange a briefing for its housing staff reminding them of the various choices they may have available when contacted by households on the housing register expressing dissatisfaction but who have not explicitly requested a review (for example, when Councillors or MPs make representations on constituents’ behalf). This can include the Council offering a review; considering the potential relevance of homeless legislation or seeking more information to decide if either of these choices might be appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

94. For reasons set out above I uphold this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr C and Ms D. The Council has agreed action that I consider will remedy that injustice. Consequently, I have completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman