Summary: there was fault in the way the Council handled Mr X’s enquiries about costs relating to a charging order on his property and delay in providing him with a final settlement figure. But we found no evidence that the Council had reneged on an agreement to write off the costs when Mr X cleared his Council Tax arrears. We have completed the investigation because the Council agreed to provide a suitable remedy for Mr X’s time and trouble.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council:
• told him in November 2019 it would waive Court costs when he cleared his Council Tax arrears but then later reneged on this agreement;
• took too long to respond to enquiries he has made since April 2020 about removing a charge on his property and confirming the costs;
• failed to refund £100 he overpaid on his 2020/21 Council Tax bill.
2. Mr X says he has been put to considerable time and trouble corresponding with the Council about this matter since April 2020. He says he has spent more than 23 hours writing letters and sending emails. He valued his time at £20 per hour and expects a payment of £460 for the time and trouble to which he has been put. He also says the Council’s actions affected his credit rating and prevented him getting a mortgage.
3. Mr X wants the Council to remove the charge on his property and make an acceptable time and trouble payment.

Back to top

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• Mr X’s complaint and all the correspondence he sent us;
• The Council’s records including correspondence with Mr X about his complaint;
• The Council’s response to my enquiries.
7. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies for complaints. We may recommend a modest payment for time and trouble. There is inevitably time and trouble involved in making a complaint. So we only recommend a remedy when there has been some fault in the way the body in jurisdiction considered the complaint, which meant the complainant incurred time and trouble above what is considered usual. For example, this may apply when:
• the body in jurisdiction repeatedly refused to consider the complaint; or
• the complainant had to ask a councillor or MP to help, before the body in jurisdiction would consider the complaint;
• the body in jurisdiction spent several months considering the complaint multiple times at the first stage of its complaints process, instead of progressing the complaint to a higher level; or
• the body in jurisdiction did not consider the conclusions and recommendations of an independent investigation into the complaint.
8. A payment for time and trouble may be justified in these circumstances.
9. However, we do not recommend payment of the costs a person incurred in making the complaint (such as postage and phone calls) or base the award on an hourly rate for time spent pursuing a complaint.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

11. A council may apply to the County Court for a charging order when it has obtained a Liability Order for a Council Tax debt of more than £1,000.The effect of the charging order is to put a legal charge on the taxpayer’s property. So if it is sold, the amount due is paid from the proceeds. The Court may order the debtor to pay the Council’s costs in making the application as part of the judgment.

The background to this complaint

12. In January 2012 the Council successfully applied to the County Court for a charging order on Mr X’s property because he had more than £3,000 Council Tax arrears. The Court also ordered Mr X to pay Court fees and costs amounting to £264.
13. We are not investigating what happened in 2012 but this information is relevant to Mr X’s later complaint.

What happened

14. On 15 November 2019 Mr X telephoned an officer in the Customer Service team. in response to a text message about arrears on that year’s Council Tax. It transpired that a payment Mr X made had been allocated to his historic Council Tax arrears instead of the current year’s bill. He says the officer told him during the call that the Court costs relating to the 2012 charging order would be waived once he cleared all the Council Tax arrears.
15. On the next day Mr X sent an email to the Council’s Enforcement team saying he would reduce the historic Council Tax arrears by continuing to make monthly payments of £150 by standing order. He did not make any reference to waiving the Court fees in this email.
16. On 19 November an officer in the Enforcement team confirmed by email that paying £150 monthly was acceptable. The email did not mention the Court costs.
17. In 2019 the Council says its practice was to keep recordings of calls to its customer service team for six months before they were deleted. It later reduced the retention period to six to eight weeks. However it did not record calls to the Council Tax enforcement team in 2019. As no call recordings were available by the time of our investigation, I could not verify what Mr X was told in the November 2019 call.
18. We asked the Council to send us case notes of officers’ contact with Mr X in November 2019. I considered these records. Mr X spoke to an officer on 15 November. There is nothing in the Council’s record of this call, or in the email correspondence the following day, to indicate that an officer agreed to write off the Court costs.
19. By April 2020 Mr X had cleared the historic Council Tax arrears. He then contacted the Council to ask about getting the charge on his property removed.
20. In August 2020 Mr X requested evidence that the Council had removed the legal charge on his property now all the Council Tax arrears had been cleared. Mr X did not get a response so he sent a reminder letter in early October 2020.
21. In late October 2020 Mr X contacted the Enforcement team to ask how he could appeal against the Court costs. He said his income had reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic and he wanted the Council or the Court to waive payment of costs.
22. An officer in the Enforcement team sent Mr X a copy of the interim and final charging orders from 2012. She told him an appeal had to be made within 28 days so it was too late for him to appeal. She said the costs were properly due and the Council would not remove the charging order until they were paid. She said there was no rush for Mr X to pay if his income had been affected by the pandemic.
23. On 28 October 2020 Mr X made a formal complaint and requested a copy of the relevant call recordings. He referred to the telephone conversation in November 2019 and said the officer told him then that the costs would be waived once he cleared the arrears.
24. A team manager in the Revenues & Benefits Service replied to Mr X’s complaint on 9 November. He confirmed the costs were properly due and the charging order would not be removed until Mr X paid them. He said Mr X could arrange to pay the costs in instalments if he was in financial difficulties. He also told Mr X the Customer Service team only kept call recordings for six weeks so he could not provide Mr X with the records requested.
25. Mr X was not satisfied with this response and asked for his complaint to be considered at the next stage of the complaints procedure. He said he did not appeal against the charging order in 2012 due to his personal circumstances at the time. He asked the Council to check its written records to verify that an officer told him in November 2019 the costs would be written off when he cleared the Council Tax arrears. He also said the Council had ignored two letters (those sent in August and October 2020). He did not want to pay in instalments because the Council had agreed to write off the costs. He said the Council had not fully investigated his complaint and had not kept to its agreement to remove the charging order when he cleared the Council Tax arrears.
26. The Head of Revenues investigated Mr X’s complaint. He contacted Mr X to ask if he could remember the precise date of the November 2019 call and the name of the officer. Mr X could not provide these details but said he expected the Council to have notes of the call. He said he intended to make a claim in Court to recover his own costs in pursuing this matter. He said the charge on the property had adversely affected his credit rating.
27. The Head of Revenues sent his final response on 23 November 2020. He had checked the records from November 2019 and found no evidence that an officer had agreed to write off the costs. He added that there would have been no reason for an officer to have agreed to that. The costs were therefore still due. He accepted the Council had failed to respond to the enquiry Mr X made in August 2020 which led him to send a reminder letter in October 2020. He advised Mr X to contact the Ombudsman if he was not satisfied with this final response.
28. Mr X complained to us in late March 2021. We decided his complaint was premature because he raised a new issue about the Council’s delay between December 2020 and March 2021 in responding to his request to for a final settlement figure to remove the charge on his property. These events happened after he made his original complaint to the Council in October 2020.
29. The Council investigated this as a new complaint at both stages of its complaints procedure. It said the Council’s solicitors needed to retrieve an archived manual file to check the original Charging Order before confirming the figure. There was a delay in getting the file due to the COVID-19 lockdown and because the solicitors were working from home.
30. The Council’s solicitors sent Mr X an email on 29 March 2021 confirming the figure for costs and disbursements was £264. It apologised for the delay in providing this information and gave details of the bank account for settlement. Mr X says he did not receive this email.
31. Mr X asked for his complaint to be considered at the final stage of the complaints procedure. The Head of Revenues replied in May 2021. He accepted there had been a delay in responding to Mr X’s request for a final settlement figure. He said he would expect the Council’s solicitors to have kept Mr X informed of progress and the reasons for the delay. He offered Mr X £50 compensation.
32. The Head of Revenues asked Mr X to provide details of his bank account if he wished to accept the £50 payment. He said he could also arrange a refund of the £100 credit on his Council Tax account, or transfer both amounts to reduce the outstanding £264 costs.
33. Mr X declined the offer of £50 because he considered it did not adequately compensate for his time pursuing his complaints with the Council. He did not respond to the enquiry about the £100 credit on his account. He then resubmitted his complaint to us.

The £100 overpayment

34. Mr X overpaid his Council Tax bill for 2020/21 by £100.
35. The Council says it has no record that Mr X replied to the Head of Revenue's May 2021 letter (paragraph 32) so the £100 remains on his Council Tax account. It was waiting for Mr X’s instructions about whether he wanted a refund or for it to be used to reduce the outstanding costs.
36. During our investigation, Mr X confirmed he wanted the Council to make a refund by cheque. I passed this information on to the Council and the Revenues Manager confirmed a cheque will be sent to Mr X.

My analysis

37. I have seen no evidence that the Council agreed in November 2019 to write off the £264 costs from the 2012 charging order when Mr X cleared the Council Tax arrears. Mr X’s firm recollection is that the officer told him that would happen. But there is nothing in the written records from November 2019 confirming this. As the call recording is no longer available, I cannot verify what Mr X was told and it is possible there was a misunderstanding.
38. For these reasons, I find no evidence that the Council reneged on a promise to write off the costs. This means Mr X is still liable to pay the £264 costs ordered by the Court.
39. The Council has agreed to refund the £100 Council Tax overpayment from 2020/21. This provides a satisfactory outcome for this part of the complaint.
40. The Council was at fault because it failed to respond to the enquiry in Mr X’s August 2020 letter. He therefore had to send another letter in October 2020. The Council also accepts Mr X was not kept properly informed by its solicitors between December 2020 and March 2021 when there was a delay in providing him with a final settlement figure for costs.
41. Mr X wants the Council to pay £460 as a time and trouble payment. However we would not consider that is an appropriate and proportionate remedy. Our recommendations for time and trouble payments are not calculated by reference to someone’s hourly rate for time spent pursuing a complaint. Inevitably it takes time to make a complaint and pursue it through all the stages of a complaints procedure. We therefore only recommend a payment where the Council’s fault in handling a complaint, or correspondence, caused the complainant additional time, trouble or inconvenience.
42. With this in mind, I considered whether the Council’s offer of £50 was adequate for the delay in providing a final settlement figure and acting on his August 2020 letter. I recommended the Council should pay £100. This is at the lower end of the range for time and trouble payments in our published guidance on remedies. As Mr X still owes the Council £264 in costs, it is reasonable for the Council to offset £100 against this debt rather than making the payment to Mr X.
43. I also considered Mr X’s point that the charging order affected his credit rating and prevented him getting a mortgage. He has not provided any evidence to support that statement. But, in any event, the Council is entitled to recover its costs before it removes the charging order. So any negative impact there may have been on Mr X’s credit rating while the charging order remains in place is not due to fault by the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. The Council has agreed to offset £100 against the £264 costs Mr X owes. It will write to Mr X within one month of this decision to confirm the revised balance due.
45. The Council has already apologised in writing to Mr X for the distress caused by the way it handled his case so I did not recommend a further apology.
46. The Council is processing a refund of £100 for overpaid Council Tax. The Council will send us evidence that the cheque has been issued within one month.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I have completed the investigation and found the Council was at fault because it took too long to respond to Mr X’s enquiries about the costs and respond to his August 2020 letter. This caused Mr X some inconvenience and time and trouble and the Council has agreed to a suitable remedy.
48. I did not uphold Mr X’s complaint that the Council reneged on an agreement to write off the Court costs. The Council is entitled to recover its costs before it removes the charging order on Mr X’s property.
49. The agreement to refund the £100 overpayment provides a satisfactory remedy for this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman