Summary: Mr C complained the Council twice pursued him for an outstanding council tax debt owed by someone with the same name, even though it said it had removed him from the case after the first occasion. The Council also failed to address Mr C’s complaint and request for a review. The Council has agreed to review its staff guidance, apologise and pay £250 to Mr C for distress caused by the poor service he received.

The complaint

1. Mr C says the Council contacted him in September 2018 about an outstanding council tax payment for a property he has never been associated to. He says he contacted the Council, it realised its mistake and said it would remove Mr C from the case. Mr C says in September 2020 he was again contacted about the same debt and letters from enforcement agents were sent to his parents’ address.
2. Mr C says he complained to the Council who issued him with a stage 1 response which did not fully address his concerns. Mr C says he requested a review of the complaint and did not receive a response until the Ombudsman contacted the Council.
3. Mr C says being pursued for a debt he was not responsible for twice and the poor complaint handling from the Council has caused him distress. He says he had to spend time trying to resolve the issue twice.

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. As part of this investigation, I have:

• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant,
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents provided,
• sent a draft decision to both the Council and the Complainant and considered their comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council contacted Mr C in September 2019 about a council tax debt at a property where someone with the same name as Mr C had lived. The Council said it linked Mr C to the address following a Land Registry check.
8. Mr C contacted the Council after receiving correspondence about the debt and the Council advised it would remove him from the case as he was not the person it was looking for.
9. The Council did not correctly remove Mr C from the debt recovery case record.
10. In September 2020, while living at his parents’ address, enforcement agents instructed by the Council wrote to Mr C about the outstanding debt. Mr C contacted the Council and was told he would be removed from the record again.
11. Mr C made a complaint to the Council about being pursued for the debt twice even though he is not the liable person. Mr C received a response which he did not feel addressed his concerns and he requested a review of the complaint. Mr C did not receive a response and so contacted the Ombudsman.
12. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the Council offered Mr C an apology and £100 payment. Mr C did not feel this offer recognised the distress caused and asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint.

Analysis

13. The Council accepts fault in this case. The information provided shows Mr C was incorrectly linked to a debt he never owed. The Council failed to remove Mr C’s details from the record, resulting in the Council pursuing him incorrectly for a second time.
14. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the response to Mr C’s complaint was not to its expected standard and did not address his complaint in full. It also said it should have responded to Mr C’s request for a review of his complaint and the service provided fell well below its customer service standards. I welcome the Council’s acknowledgement of this fault.
15. I am pleased to note the Council has improved its complaint handling process to ensure such incidents are unlikely to be repeated. It says a manager is now involved from an early stage to prevent review requests being missed.
16. The Council has provided the Ombudsman with details of how it incorrectly linked Mr C to the debt at the start of the case and the advice it provides to its officers about linking individuals to cases. These instructions do not contain instructions about how to remove individuals from a case. To ensure similar mistakes do not happen in the future I consider the Council should update this advice.

Back to top

Agreed action

17. To remedy the injustice caused by the Council’s fault in this case, the Council has agreed, within one month of this final decision, to take the following action:

• Send a written apology to Mr C;
• Review the advice provided to officers and to ensure they know how to correctly remove an individual from a record, and
• Pay Mr C £250 in recognition of the distress caused.

18. The Council should send evidence it has completed the actions to the Ombudsman within one month of this final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We uphold a finding of fault against the Council, for the reasons set out above. The Council has agreed to our suggested remedies to provide a fair outcome to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman