Summary: Mr E complains the Council has sent a council tax debt to its enforcement agents. But a different agents have confirmed he had cleared all his council tax debts. The Ombudsman’s investigation has compared Mr E’s council tax bills over three years with the payments he made. This shows the Council is correct to say Mr E still owes it council tax.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr E, complains the Council has sent council tax debts to its enforcement agents. But agents have told him he had cleared his council tax debts.
2. Mr E recognises that ‘for several years’ he was not paying his council tax. But in 2017, before he retired, he contacted the Council and paid it what he owed. But at the start of 2018 the Council advised him he still owed it council tax.
3. Mr E is concerned enforcement agents will turn up at his home to confiscate his possessions and make extra charges.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

How I considered this complaint

6. The information I have seen includes the documents Mr E supplied with his complaint and the Council’s responses through the two stages of its complaints procedure. I have discussed the complaint with Mr E. I have also compared the council tax bills with payments Mr E made.
7. I have also sent my draft decision to Mr E and the Council and considered their responses.

What I found

8. The Council says that it had wrongly assigned payments Mr E had made it for council tax debt for 2014/15 to earlier years. When it realised this error, it corrected it. This left Mr E owing the following council tax:
   • £328.00 for 2012/13;
   • £266.50 for 2013/14;
   • £0 for 2014/15;
   • total owed: £594.50
9. In April 2018 the Council wrote to Mr E enclosing a means test form so it could assess his income with a view to setting up an affordable payment arrangement.
10. Mr E contacted enforcement agents (agents 1) that had enforced council tax debts he had. They wrote back to advise he had a balance of £0 on:
    • a debt of £643.44;
    • a debt of £796.06.
11. The Council says Mr E did not get in touch about repayment of the balances owed, so it passed those debt to its enforcement agents (different agents from the one that Mr E had contacted – agents 2).
12. After agents 2 contacted Mr E, he complained to the Council about its recovery action. Its 30 August stage one complaint response:
    • Apologised that “…the payments on your account were previously misallocated, showing that the arrears were outstanding for different financial years. As previously advised, if the Council receive direct payments which do not match any of the instalments due on your account then the system automatically allocated the payment towards the oldest arrears on your account”.
    • Advised it had placed a hold on Mr E’s account that was with agents 2 to allow him a chance to contact them to discuss repayment.
    • Advised it had asked agents 2 to send Mr E a means test form.
13. On 4 September Mr E contacted the Council to say its explanation of his debts differed from what agents 1 had told him.
14. On 4 October, the Council responded at the second stage of its complaints procedure. It attached spreadsheets from council tax and agents 2. The Council advised:

“…if payments are received on an account which do not match any of the instalments due they automatically allocated to the oldest arrears. Because of this, several of the payments you made towards your council tax debts were allocated to the wrong years. It therefore appeared to you that the debts on the accounts for 2012/13 and 2013/14 were smaller than they actually were”.

15. Mr E wrote again to the Council disputing the stage two complaint response. He again advised the Council that agents 1 had confirmed he did not have arrears.
16. The Council responded on 1 November. It offered, as a gesture of goodwill, to waive agents 2’s fees of £150 and to take the account back, if he contacted the Council within 14 days, agreeing to make payments.
17. Mr E still believed the Council had made an error, based on the information from agents 1. So he complained to the Ombudsman.
18. I have looked at the information from Mr E and the Council. This shows:
    • The enforcement action is about debts over three tax years: 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15.
    • The council tax bills over those three years were: £971.44, £1062.56 and £1067.30. The total is 3101.36.
    • Mr E’s payments for those council tax accounts (including Summons costs but excluding enforcement fees) were: £643.44, £796.36 and £1067.36. The total is £2506.86.
    • The difference between the bills and Mr E’s payments is £594.50.

Analysis

19. Agents 1’s letters to Mr E confirm the amount it recovered from two of the years when Mr E built up council tax debts. But a comparison of the council tax bills for the three tax years with Mr E’s payments, confirms the Council’s position.
20. I can understand this will have been disconcerting and disappointing to Mr E, as he thought he had cleared all his debts. I see no suggestion other than that Mr E was acting in the full belief that that was the case.
21. The Council’s response says the problem happened as it allocated Mr E’s payments to the wrong accounts. It is unclear whether this was because of fault by the Council. But my view is I do not need to investigate this issue further. This is because the Council offered to take the account back from its agents and cancel the fees. In response to my draft decision it agreed to make that offer again. It advised it had again withdrew the debts from its enforcement agents and sent Mr E a means test form.
22. Those actions are a suitable remedy for any fault there may have been.

Final decision

23. I do not uphold the complaint and I have completed my investigation.