Summary: We found fault on Mrs S’s complaint made on behalf of her son, about the Council failing to communicate with her about his council tax when aware he was a vulnerable adult. This caused stress as it issued a summons. It failed to act under its recovery policy or on his request. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs S complains on behalf of her son, Mr T, about the Council failing, despite being repeatedly told he is a vulnerable adult, to communicate with her about his non-payment of council tax which he cannot understand: as a result, he failed to pay bills for council tax sent to him and had the stress of it issuing a summons against him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered all the information Mrs S provided, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mrs S and the Council. I considered their Council’s responses.

Back to top

What I found

Council corporate recovery policy 2023/2024

5. If the Council does not receive an instalment payment on time, it will send a reminder notice. If this is paid within seven days, it will take no further action. If no payment is made, or a part payment is made, the Council will issue a summons at court for the full year’s balance. At court, the Council will ask for a liability order.
6. There is no national standard or legal definition of vulnerability. The Council recognises some ways to recover debt may not be appropriate in such cases where the individual may be incapable of understanding or defending themselves from proceedings.
7. It will be vigilant for the signs and symptoms of vulnerability to safeguard its most vulnerable customers and reassure them. When considering if a debt should be repaid by a ‘vulnerable’ customer, it will consider individual circumstances, and greater flexibility will be given.
8. It listed the circumstances and characteristics that may make a person vulnerable and whether the cause of the vulnerability is permanent or temporary. The list was not exhaustive, and each case is individually considered taking account of all relevant factors. The key factor will be the circumstances giving rise to the concern which affects their ability to deal with their financial affairs. The list included: disabled persons (physical or mental impairment); mental impairment or learning disability; serious illness, including mental illness; those on Income Support, Job Seeker’s Allocation, Pension Credit or Support Allowance; unemployed; difficulty reading or writing.
9. The Council will consider allowing them longer to pay, postponing recovery action, ensuring it takes account of vulnerabilities and that recovery measures are proportionate to their circumstances.

What happened

10. Mrs S explained her son was cognitively impaired and considered a vulnerable adult as he had literacy and numeracy problems. He was unable to use the internet. Due to the nature of Mr T’s work, he was often made redundant. When this happened, she contacted the Council asking officers to call her if there were problems with his council tax account.
11. She claimed she sent the Council documents which Mr T signed giving her authority to act on his behalf about council tax. Over the years, she said they visited a local office together about changing his billing address to hers to avoid problems and claimed to have had many meetings about the need to contact her about it. He had a history of needing a support worker, for example, from the Council in the past.
12. The Council confirmed it had no record of Mrs S and Mr T visiting its offices to change his billing address. Nor did it have any instruction from him to make this change.
13. The evidence showed in 2012, Mrs S called and told Council officers Mr T had learning difficulties.
14. The same year he signed a letter but, this was sent to High Peak Community Housing, an arm’s length management company, set up to manage the Council’s social housing provision. The letter said Mr T authorised the discussion of any problems with rent or council tax with Mrs S ‘in the first instance’. He asked for this to be passed on to the housing team at the Council. While it is accepted this was not sent directly to it by Mr T, or the High Peak Community Housing at the time, it was sent on to the Council in 2018.
15. The Council explained it does not have the resources or funding to speak to all individuals where there are issues with the payment of council tax. Requiring it to do so would place an unreasonable financial and administrative burden on it.
16. In 2017, the Council recorded Mrs S visiting its office to complain about a summons. The record said Mr T ‘is vulnerable’.
17. In 2018, Mrs S visited its office about a problem with his weekly arrangements. She was told the Council needed written consent from her son to allow it to deal with her. Mrs S told them it already had this. She explained she was an advocate for her son which had also been previously explained.
18. In 2023, Mr T began to fall into arrears with his council tax. In August, the Council sent him the first reminder notice as council tax arrears were £93.
19. The following month, he was issued with Council Tax Reduction and told his new instalment plan. Council Tax Reduction is a benefit for those on low income or those claiming certain benefits which helps them pay their council tax bill.
20. In November, the Council sent Mr T a second reminder notice. The arrears at this point were £10.83. He was warned failure to pay meant he would need to pay the whole sum.
21. In December, just before Christmas, the Council sent Mr T a summons for non-payment of council tax. The sum owed was £25.83.
22. While the Council accepted Mr T gave consent to talk to Mrs S about his council tax account, he had not agreed to it forwarding documents and correspondence to her. It needed his consent to do so. It asked her to send his signed consent allowing this in 2017.
23. It confirmed council tax was collected by direct debit until Mr T recently lost his job.
24. In February 2024, the Council sent her a form of authority for Mr T to sign. It was specifically drafted for them.
25. The start of April was the start of the new council tax year for 2024/2025. Later that month, Mrs S complained Mr T was not sent a council tax bill for the new council tax year and was now three weeks behind in payments. He was sent a bill towards the end of the month. His claim for Council Tax Reduction had been cancelled from the start of the year as he no longer received Universal Credit. The payment plan sent was monthly, not weekly, which was how he paid in the past. The Council sent him a weekly payment plan the following month.
26. Towards the end of April, the Council received his signed form of authority. This was the form it had sent Mrs S two months before.
27. The Council explained it cancelled numerous summonses to Mr T, set up weekly payment arrangements, updated arrangements to take account of his circumstances (i.e. change in job), as well as making discretionary awards of Council Tax Reduction. It also explained over the years, Mr T had visited its offices and contacted the Council on his own, most recently in 2023 to say he had lost his job. It will now send all documentation to Mrs S.
28. The Council said it considered it had dealt with Mrs S and Mr T professionally, fairly, empathetically, and treated Mr T in line with its policies in terms of his vulnerabilities. It also confirmed it had a ‘vulnerability marker’ on his account which it used to guide its interaction with him. It argued this did not prevent an individual from the responsibility of paying their debt. It must be able to pursue all genuine debt but recognised the need to take steps to deal with those with vulnerabilities according to its policies.

My findings

29. There are two strands to this complaint. The first was whether the Council had specific knowledge from Mr T about the need for officers to contact Mrs S to help deal with his council tax problems.
30. Having considered this, I found fault on this complaint for the following reasons:
1. I am satisfied the Council was aware as far back as 2018 of Mr T’s wish for any problems with rent or council tax to be ‘discussed with’ Mrs S. The Council correctly decided this did not extend to sending her correspondence about his council tax.
2. The letter gave it consent to discuss problems with his council tax with her. I consider there was a failure by the Council to do so. When his account started to go into arrears, this was a problem with his council tax and fell within the consent he had given. This meant the Council’s file for Mr T should have alerted officers of the need to discuss it with Mrs S in such circumstances. Discussions could be in person or held over the telephone. By doing so, the Council would stay within the limit of the consent Mr T had given which was for discussion, not sending her documents.
3. The Council failed to ensure this happened. This was fault.
4. I am not persuaded by the Council’s argument that requiring such contact with Mrs S would place an unfair financial and administrative burden on it. The Council argued it did not have the resources to ‘speak to all individuals if there are issues with the payment of Council Tax.’ I did not suggest it needed to speak to all individuals where there were issues about such payment but, on the facts of this very specific case, to Mrs S.
5. Here was a known vulnerable man who the Council had consent from to discuss any problems with the account with his mother. As it accepted, it had cancelled several summonses in the past when contacted and after considering his vulnerability. A call alerting Mrs S to problems as they arose would not only have allowed her to act to prevent any escalation but would also have saved the Council time and money in the long term.
6. I have seen no evidence of the Council having any such alert in place on his case file about his request to discuss problems with his council tax account with his mother. This was fault.
7. I am also satisfied these failures caused him and Mrs S avoidable injustice. This was in the form of stress, anxiety, inconvenience, and frustration for example. There was also a lost opportunity to have a system in place which would have avoided escalation on his account.
31. The second strand in this complaint was whether the Council properly turned its mind to his vulnerability generally under its policy. For the following reasons, I am not satisfied it had done so:
1. Its policy stated it would be vigilant for the signs and symptoms of vulnerability. This was to safeguard its most vulnerable customers and reassure them.
2. I am satisfied the Council had signs of vulnerability in its records. For example, the records show:

• it had contact with Mrs S in July 2012. This was in the form of a telephone note recording her telling the Council that he ‘has learning difficulties’;
• she visited its offices in July 2017 and said Mr T was vulnerable;
• in 2018, it received the 2012 letter Mr T had sent about giving it consent to discuss problems with his council tax account with Mrs S; and
• the same year, Mrs S visited again and said she was his advocate. There was nothing to show this statement was explored with her, for example.
3. The Council failed to show it acted on these signs by placing an effective vulnerability marker on his file which alerted officers to the need to discuss problems with the account with Mrs S. This was fault.
4. The policy said it would look for symptoms of vulnerability. The evidence suggests it had evidence of such symptoms. For example, the Council accepted it cancelled ‘numerous summonses’ to Mr T. In addition, it also had information from Mr T and Mrs S about his learning disability and accepted it had made weekly payment arrangements instead of the more usual monthly payment arrangements. I consider this information was evidence of an indicator, or symptom, of his vulnerability.
5. I saw no evidence showing how officers considered signs and symptoms of vulnerability in this case, or how they marked it on his record to alert other officers to his vulnerability. While the Council’s response to my draft decision said it had a ‘vulnerability marker’ on his account, no details were provided about when this was done and what it alerted officers of. For example, despite any vulnerability marker, the signs noted above meant the Council continued to issue summonses against him and failed to discuss problems with Mrs S.
6. I consider these failures amount to fault. I am satisfied the fault caused avoidable injustice to Mr T and Mrs S. This was in the form of frustration, inconvenience, and stress. There was also a lost opportunity to have his vulnerabilities properly marked and flagged up on his file.
7. There was also a failure to consider whether issuing a summons for £25.83 against Mr T, who was a vulnerable adult, was proportionate in all the circumstances. These circumstances included evidence of a recurrent history of issuing and then cancelling summonses, weekly payment arrangements, and being told he had learning disabilities.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. I considered our guidance on remedies along with the following:

• While I considered Mrs S’s delay of about two months with the returning of the form of authority, I am satisfied this was months after the issuing of the summons.
• The Council confirmed it has a system in place which allowed officers to record whether a person was vulnerable and what additional action may be needed on the case file.

33. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Mr T and Mrs S a written apology for failing to: fully act on his request letter; ensure there was an effective alert on his file about his vulnerabilities which gave officers notice of the need to discuss problems with this account with Mrs S; consider whether it was proportionate to issue a summons for the amount demanded in all the circumstances of Mr T.
2. To make a payment of £150 to Mr T for the injustice caused.
3. To make a payment of £100 to Mrs S for the injustice caused.
4. Remind relevant officers of the need to consider and assess all evidence of vulnerability on a case file and to record the outcome.
5. Remind relevant officers of the need to consider and assess whether it is a proportionate response to start formal recovery action in all the circumstances of the case, which would include considering vulnerability and the sum outstanding.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I found fault on Mrs S’s complaint on behalf of her son, Mr T, against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman