Summary: Mr X complains the Council took recovery action on a historic Council Tax debt that he was not liable for. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to contact Mr X before restarting recovery action. However, no injustice has been caused to Mr X as it would not have changed the action taken.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council unreasonably took enforcement action on a Council tax debt that was resolved ten years ago.
2. Mr X complains the Council knew the houses were repossessed and did not contact him before taking action.
3. Mr X complains the Council forced him to pay a debt he was not liable for as the houses had been repossessed.

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 an organisation’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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I am not investigating the part of Mr X’s complaint that the Council made him liable for Council Tax when he was not liable for. This is because this matter is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and Mr X has appeal rights to tribunal.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered Mr X’s complaint and information provided by him. I also considered information from the Council.
8. I considered comments Mr X and the Council a draft of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

Council tax

9. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 cover both the way councils collect payments of council tax and the way councils can recover council tax debt. The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and associated regulations cover the way enforcement agents may recover debts.
10. To use the various powers available to it to recover unpaid council tax, a council must apply to a magistrate’s court for a liability order against those it believes are liable. Once a council has a liability order it can take recovery action.
11. A liability order gives a council the legal power to take enforcement action to collect the council tax and court costs owed. The most commonly used powers are asking for deductions from benefits, getting an attachment of earnings (this means deductions are taken directly from earnings by an employer and passed to the council) or using enforcement agents. The council can decide which recovery method to use but it can only use one method for one liability order at one time.
12. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to consider whether someone is liable for Council tax, as this is a matter for the tribunal. The Ombudsman can consider the actions of a Council following a liability order, but he cannot consider whether the Council has wrongly decided someone is liable as that is for the tribunal to decide.

Recovery of historic Council tax debt

13. If a Council has a liability order there is no time limit on taking recovery action. The debtor may have moved and the council not taken action to find the new address or the council may have found it hard to collect the debt and ceased action, but not written the debt off.  In some cases debts have been written off; when the council finds the debtor (they may have moved back into the area) the council writes the debt on and pursues it again. 
14. If no action has been taken for some time, the Ombudsman expects a Council, before taking any recovery action, to contact the debtor first to remind them of the existence of the debt. The Ombudsman does not have a blanket view on council’s pursuit of historic debt, but councils need to consider if is fair and reasonable to enforce a specific liability order

What happened

15. Mr X previously owned two properties, Property A and Property B. He also inherited a property, Property C, when his mother died. The Council said he was liable for the Council tax on all these properties.
16. Mr X says he told the Council that Property B was repossessed from him in 2010, and that Property C was repossessed when his mother died in 2009.
17. The Council continued to bill Mr X for Council tax on all properties. Mr X says he sent paperwork to the Council in 2010 to show he was no longer liable for the Council tax on properties B and C.
18. The Council obtained a liability order for Property B in June 2010. This was for the period of May 2006 to March 2011.
19. The Council obtained liability orders for Property C in October 2010 and July 2011. These were for the period December 2009 to March 2012.
20. The Council also applied for an attachment of earnings to recover the debt, but this was not successful.
21. The Council contacted Mr X in August 2013 and October 2013 to discuss a settlement, however no agreement was reached.
22. The Council did not contact Mr X between 2014 and 2023.
23. In December 2022 the Council passed the debt to enforcement agents, who contacted Mr X and served an enforcement notice in January 2023.
24. Mr X paid the outstanding debt to the enforcement agents, and complained to the Council that he had supplied the evidence ten years ago that the houses were repossessed, and he was not liable.
25. In the Councils complaint response, it said it had not received any evidence the houses had been repossessed, and remained of the view that Mr X was liable for the debts. The Council gave Mr X the opportunity to send evidence of the repossessions and it would refund the debt, but he did not do this.
26. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

27. Part of Mr X’s complaint is that he is not liable for the Council tax on properties B and C for the time periods the Council says he is. Mr X says this is because the houses were repossessed and no longer belonged to him.
28. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided a copy of the land registry which shows Mr X does still own property A. The Council said it had not received evidence of repossession for either property B or C.
29. Mr X has not provided me with any evidence of giving the Council information to prove repossession.
30. I cannot investigate whether Mr X is liable or not for the Council tax as this is a matter for the tribunal. If he believed he was not liable, he could have appealed to the tribunal. Therefore, I am only investigating the Councils actions following the liability orders.
31. The liability orders were granted by the court in June 2010, October 2010 and July 2011. I can see the Council tried to apply an attachment of earnings and come to an arrangement with Mr X in 2013, however these were unsuccessful. Once a Council has a liability order, there is no timeframe a Council must act by, however, the Ombudsman expects Councils to try and contact debtors before restarting recovery action.
32. The Council then did not contact Mr X for nine years before it passed the debt to enforcement agents. The Council says this was in part due to not having an address for Mr X. However, Mr X still lives in the Council area at property A and has been paying Council tax there for some time, despite renting it out temporarily. In my view, the Council could have contacted him earlier to advise him of its intent to restart recovery action.
33. Not communicating with Mr X about the debt for so long was fault by the Council. However, when considering any injustice to Mr X because of the fault, on balance I am satisfied that Mr X would have again challenged whether he was liable for the debt. This would have meant the Council would still have passed the debt to the enforcement agents. Therefore, there was fault by the Council, but it has not caused Mr X injustice as it is unlikely contacting Mr X would have changed the overall outcome.
34. In response to my draft decision, Mr X provided a letter from a bank which referred to property B being repossessed. Mr X said he previously gave this letter to the Council, however the Council had no record of this. I sent the Council this letter and it has agreed to contact the bank and find out the date of repossession. It said it would use the information to update Mr X’s account accordingly.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have now completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council for failing to communicate with Mr X before restarting recovery action, however, the fault has not caused Mr X injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman