Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement agents carrying out an enforcement visit following a failure to keep up with a payment agreement. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about enforcement agents (bailiffs) appointed by the Council carrying out a home visit which added to her recovery costs when she missed a payment in her arrears instalments. She says they did not consider that she is a vulnerable person because she is a single mother going through a divorce and that the visit was unreasonable and caused unnecessary extra expense.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says enforcement agents carried out a home visit following her failure to maintain a monthly payment plan which she agreed with them to reduce her council tax arrears. She says the visit added to the costs she has already incurred and she believes the costs were unreasonable and should either be removed or reduced. She complained to the agency but it told her she signed an agreement which made it clear that if any payments were missed further enforcement action would take place.
6. Miss X says the visit should not have been made because she considers herself to be a vulnerable person because she is a single mother going through a divorce. She could have raised this with the with the agency before the visit and it is not clear that she has ever asked to be considered as vulnerable before this incident.
7. We cannot determine who is a vulnerable debtor because the term is not defined in the legislation and only a court can decide this. I have not seen any evidence that Miss X made this claim either when the liability order was obtained by the Council or when she signed the payment agreement with the agency. The fees for carrying out enforcement visits are not set by the Council or enforcement agents but by the Ministry of justice on a fixed scale.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement agents carrying out an enforcement visit following a failure to keep up with a payment agreement. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman