Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s use of enforcement agents to recover unpaid council tax. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has agreed to withdraw the agent’s charges and pay him £100 in recognition of its fault in the recovery procedure. This is a reasonable settlement to the matters which Mr X raised in his complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complained about the Council sending an enforcement agent to recover unpaid council tax. He was given misleading information by the agent who said he could return to the property with a locksmith if Mr X failed to pay. He also says he asked the Council to send him a bill so he could clear the debt, but it failed to do so. This resulted in a further visit from an enforcement agent which caused him further stress.
2. He wants the Council to apologise for its failures, to cancel the costs of the agent calling on him and to allow him to pay directly to the Council not the agency.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has commented on a draft copy of my decisi

What I found

5. In 2018 Mr X was visited by an enforcement agent appointed by the Council to collect unpaid council tax for which it had a liability order. The agent advised Mr X that he must make all payment and communication to the agency and that if he failed to pay, he could return with a locksmith to gain entry for recovering goods.
6. He complained to the Council in 2019 and it accepted that the agent had given incorrect information and that he could only enter a property through an unlocked door. Mr X asked for a final bill so that he could pay the Council direct. The Council says it sent a bill, but Mr X says he did not receive anything. In July 2019 another agent called and told Mr X he had powers to re-possess his car if no payment was made. Mr X paid the debt but made a further complaint because he had been told he would receive a final bill and that no further agent’s visits would be required.
7. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint about delay in sending him a final bill because it had no records of sending the original. It also accepted that it should not have required a further agent’s visit. The Council delayed responding to Mr X’s complaint. It has agreed to waive the agent’s charges of £310 and has apologised for the faults in responding to his complaints and requests. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X £100 for delay and the additional stress of the agent’s visit.
8. I consider that this is a satisfactory remedy to Mr X’s complaint and that there is no need for a further investigation.

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has agreed to withdraw the agent’s charges and pay him £100 in recognition of its fault in the recovery procedure. This is a reasonable settlement to the matters which Mr X raised in his complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman