Bailiff enforcement re Council Tax: Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) decisions

[Bailiff Advice]

All Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) decisions appear on the LGO website six months after the date of the decision. Personal information about the complainant is naturally removed but the name of the relevant local authority is made public.

 

For this discussion thread I have only selected important decisions that concern council tax enforcement where a liability order had been obtained and passed to an enforcement company.

 

Although the following decision relates to events prior to the new regulations taking effect (April 2014) it is nonetheless a very important one to refer to. The decision date was August 2014 and was published November 2014.

 

The local authority is London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham and the complaint made by the debtor was that:

 

The debtor was vulnerable and the local authority should not have referred to account to bailiffs.

 

That the council forwarded payments to the bailiff company.

 

The council refused to recall debt from the bailiff company.

[Bailiff Advice]

The link to the decision is below:

 

 

The significant paragraphs are as follows:

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/council-tax/13-012-252

 

 

The Council sent the account to the bailiffs too quickly and refused to take it back

 

Paragraph 20:

 

Once the account was with the bailiffs, the Council advised Ms N to contact the bailiffs directly. My view is this was a reasonable position to adopt.

 

It is the bailiffs who would, then, have know what stage they were at. The bailiffs would also have monitored any arrangement they made, took action if an arrangement was broken and who should have received the payments. There might also have been costs to pay directly to the bailiff. So a refusal to allow Ms N to make an arrangement with the Council was not unreasonable.

 

 

Paragraph 21:

 

The Council did review the account history, but decided it would not recall it from the bailiffs.

My view is this follows the advice in the guidance on good practice; which is to “consider” whether it should deal directly with the debtor.

The Ombudsman has no powers to question the merits of the decision (see paragraph 2).

 

 

The Council did not take into account Ms N’s vulnerabilities

 

 

Paragraph 22:

 

Ms N says the Council should have handled her account differently because of her vulnerability. But Ms N was

jointly liable

for the Council Tax with her partner and there is no evidence he is vulnerable. My view is it was not unreasonable, for the Council to continue to enforce the debt through its bailiffs, given the jointly liable taxpayer, the lack of alternative options and the payment history.

[Peterbard]

Well done for posting this, it highlights what we have been saying on this forum for the last eighteen months.

 

Namely that:

 

There is no such thing as a vulnerable household, as shown above, if someone is there who can deal with the bailiff, he can enforce.

 

That guidelines are just that, they point out what should be considered, they do not instruct anyone on what they must do. All cases are different.

 

Councils do not have to take accounts back, again it is down to the LA and the individual circumstances of the case.

 

Finally that the best course of action is to contact the EA if there are any issues regarding the enforcment in the first instance.

[Peterbard]

As I said a few days ago, I have read many recent LGO decisions and the overwhelming message that comes through from each one is that council tax is owed and it must be paid.

 

The matter of joint liability and one debtor being 'vulnerable' is very interesting indeed (with the LGO stating that as the debt is a joint one that the non vulnerable debtor can dealt with the enforcement agent).

 

I will get another decision posted up later on.

 

I suppose both party would have an interest in any goods seized, also the act does permit others to speak on vulnerable peoples behalf anyway.

[citizenB]

I think all off topic posts have now gone - if I have moved any incorrectly, please let me know

[Bailiff Advice]

Before publishing a further LGO decision it may be useful to briefly mention the 'guidance on good practice' that is frequently referred to in many of the reports that I have read.

 

In June 2013 (nine months before the new bailiff regulations came into effect) the Communities Secretary; Eric Pickles issued a surprise press release that he was issuing guidance in order to stop the 'dodgy practice where town halls collect contractual kickbacks from bailiffs". He also stated that it was 'inappropriate for councils to receive extra payment or profit-sharing from the use of bailiffs'.

 

The Council Tax Guidance released that day replaced the previous one from 2005 and it was most surprising given that a few months later, the government overhauled the entire bailiff industry with the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and the updated; National Standards for Enforcement Agent.

 

Whilst the 'guidance' is still relevant, it is generally not often referred to.

 

Eric Pickles announcement can be read here:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/clampdown-on-councils-using-heavy-handed-bailiffs

 

The Council Tax Good Practice Guidance to Council Tax can be read here:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/210478/Guidance_on_enforcement_of_CT_arrears.pdf

[Bailiff Advice]

This particular Ombudsman's decision is regarding Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council and is one that was upheld by the LGO and the complainant was awarded £100 to the distress caused when a bailiff visited her property when he should not have done so given that a payment arrangement was in place and the debtor had not defaulted on the arrangement.

 

The debtor complained to the LGO that as her partner was vulnerable that the debt should be returned to the council. The Ombudsman disagreed. Important points are as follows:

 

 

Paragraph 9:

 

Miss B wrote to the Council and said it should not be using bailiffs to collect council tax when it knew her partner was vulnerable. She said the Council had not

considered guidance

and legislation to protect vulnerable people.

 

She explained she had not been able to pay by 31 March because she had to pay a large sum to stop her home being repossessed. She also said she recently found out she was pregnant. The Council advised Miss B to contact the bailiff and said it was not able to intervene again. Miss B said she wanted to pay the bill and volunteered to pay by an Attachment to Earnings.

 

 

Paragraph 21:

 

Miss B says the enforcement agent should not have visited her home because her partner was vulnerable

and guidance says that enforcement agent should contact the creditor (the Council) and consider withdrawing action.

 

The Council did advise the enforcement agent that Miss B’s partner was vulnerable but

I agree that it had no reason to take the debt back because Miss B was the liable person and action was not being taken against her partner.

 

Miss B had agreed to pay in full by April 2014 but failed to do so. Therefore I see no fault by the enforcement agent in taking the debt to the next stage and visiting.

 

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/council-tax/14-005-599

[Bailiff Advice]

This recent one (July 2015 and published November 2015) regarding Liverpool City Council does not sit comfortably with me at all.

 

This case concerns the old 'community charge' and given the significant period that has elapsed since granting the Liability Order, Liverpool City Council cannot locate the Order but the LGO considers that the council can still enforce the debt:

 

 

 

Old community charge from 1993 can still be pursued (even though council do not have a copy of the Liability Order.

 

Analysis:

 

Paragraph 15:

 

I consider the evidence provided by the Council is enough to show it gained three liability orders. The Council can show when and where a liability order was gained and that resulting action was taken which was only possible once the Council had gained a liability order. Once the Council has obtained a liability order the statute of limitation does not apply.

 

Paragraph 16:

 

In recent years the Council has taken a decision to pursue arrears of community charge and council tax. The Council is entitled to collect old community charge and council tax debts. Where the debts are for money properly owed to the public purse, I cannot say the Council is acting with fault in collecting them.

 

Paragraph 17:

 

A significant period of time has passed in which the Council did not take recovery action and I am critical of the Council’s delay in pursuing such debts. However, the Council’s records show the money is owed and without any evidence to the contrary I cannot question the validity of these records. I cannot say the delay in itself is enough reason to say the Council should not pursue the debt.

 

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/other/14-019-796

[Peterbard]

The encouraging part about this is the bailiffs being pulled up for not honouring an agreement. Unfortunate about the rest which was probably again due to incorrect advice .

[Bailiff Advice]

This one is a very recent decision (19th November 2015) and was only made public three days ago (24th February 2016) and centres on the council tax payers obligation to advise the local authority of a new address when moving house. It concerns Southampton City Council.

 

 

Analysis:

 

Paragraph 4:

 

Mr X says that he left a property in October 2013 and set up a direct debit to pay off the council tax arrears (following a Liability Order). However, his ex-partner cancelled the order when clearing the account.

 

Paragraph 5:

 

As no further payments had been received, the Council instructed bailiffs to recover the amount.

 

Paragraph 6:

 

Mr X was contacted by bailiffs in August 2015. Mr X says that this is unfair and the costs have now increased substantially. He says that the Council did not contact to him to tell him what action it was taking.

 

Paragraph 7:

 

I note that Mr X did not appear to have advised the Council of his new address when he moved. Councils are entitled to instruct bailiffs to recover debts when an account is in arrears and a Liability Order has been obtained. Ultimately it is for the liable person to ensure that their council tax has been paid as they are legally bound to pay the amount.

 

Paragraph 8:

 

There is no evidence of maladministration in the way it has acted here. In the absence of maladministration it is not for the Ombudsman to question its decision to instruct bailiffs.

 

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/council-tax/15-012-149

[Peterbard]

Interesting quote

"

"There is no evidence of maladministration in the way it has acted here. In the absence of maladministration it is not for the Ombudsman to question its decision to instruct bailiffs."

 

should stop the long absurd letters being sent requiring the LGO to do just that.

[Bailiff Advice]

The following Local Government Ombudsman's report was only made public two days ago. It concerns Newcastle-under-Lyme-District Council. Personally, I consider that this report is one of the most important ones since the Taking Control of Goods Regulations was introduced in April 2014.

 

Almost as soon as the regulations were introduced, the internet became swamped with endless sites advising debtors of ways in which to 'avoid' paying a bailiff. The most common advice was to inform debtors that if they claimed that they were from a 'vulnerable household' this would ensure that the debt would be recalled by the council and bailiff fees would be cancelled.

 

With almost all enforcement companies having dedicated 'Welfare Departments' it is now more common than ever for genuine 'vulnerable' cases to be retained by the enforcement company and manageable payment arrangements set up.

 

 

Analysis:

 

The debtor in this case (Ms X) had a representative assisting her. She had two Liability Orders (2011/2012 and 2013/2014), In the case of the 2013/4 Liability Order, the council made an attachment of earning order to recover this debt. The AOE failed in August 2014 as Ms x moved jobs. She failed to advise the council of her new employer. The account was therefore referred to bailiffs.

 

Although the debtor was employed, she nonetheless had a history of mental health problems and a letter was obtained from her GP confirming that she suffered with stress, anxiety and depression and that this could be triggered by financial concerns. The representative complained to the Ombudsman because the local authority would not agree to recall the debt from the bailiffs.

 

 

Paragraph 12:

 

The council would only agree to recall the 2013/2014 debt from the bailiffs provided that Ms X brought the current council tax year up to date. Ms X’s representative felt this was not achievable.

 

Ms x

was hospitalised with a suspected heart attack in February 2015.

The bailiff placed a hold on the account for 28 days. After 28 days and having received evidence of Ms B’s hospitalisation at the end of February, the bailiff discussed the case with the Council.

 

Paragraph 13:

 

On 30 March the bailiff agreed to reduce the instalments they had requested in line with Ms B’s request. The bailiff records indicate that some, but not all payments were made. This prompted further enforcement contacts. The Council confirmed that Ms X was now paying bailiffs £5 per week for the 2013/14 debt. The bailiff records indicate this arrangement began in July 2015

 

Paragraph 26:

 

The bailiff records indicate that it took account of Ms X’s health and the information provided. Although I recognise that Ms X and her representative

wanted the Council to recall Ms X’s account from bailiffs

, this was a decision for the Council. I do not consider the Council was at fault when it decided the account should not be recalled. I note the Council, via the bailiffs agreed a payment plan.

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/council-tax/14-017-488

[caledfwlch]

So basically, under the new regulations, there is absolutely no such thing as a "vulnerable" debtor anymore... That, no matter how vulnerable you are, or what health problems, it stays with the bullies. Er I mean Bailiffs...

[unclebulgaria67]

The trouble is that some councils have outsourced council tax collection and one firm Capita also run Enforcement companies. I cannot believe that this does not represent a conflict of interest.

 

This is becoming more about the money than people. The new DWP secretary said yesterday that all the focus on money, had forgotten there were humans involved.

[Peterbard]

I think what this indicates is that there are many who are trying to use the vulnerability provisions to get out of paying, there are still working provisions for genuine cases,

[Leakie]

DodgeBall you may be correct in some cases,

but there are an awful lot of people who are can not pays.and vulnerable.

 

You come across as some one who think everyone is trying to get out of paying,

(if this is not the case I will apologise now, but this is the way it comes across.)

 

Unfortunately, it is all about the money for the creditor/LA and there fees for the EA.

 

Leakie

[Peterbard]

Correction i am correct in all cases.,

 

I am saying that the cases on here were correctly decided that's all.

 

I also think that the advice given to claim vulnerability whether you are or not is making it very difficult for genuine claimants and frankly have no time for them.

[Leakie]

Well if you are genuinely Vulnerable then you are vulnerable,

 

So those who had input into TCE , are only concerned about the creditors /LA's

this was my thoughts from the beginning.

 

At the end of the day it is about the debt getting repaid,

but being vulnerable does not mean the does not have to be paid,

Just that it should be taken into account, with any repayment plan.

[brassnecked]

So just how does somebody pay when they are on a Sanction and Zero income, evicted and on the streets?

[Bailiff Advice]

London Borough of Hackney

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/council-tax/15-014-848

 

 

4. Mr X was in arrears with his council tax payments in 2014/5. He says that he paid the amounts owed to the bailiffs and the Council. However, he disputes a charge of £235 imposed by the bailiffs for visiting him.

 

5. He acknowledges that the bailiff visited but not in order to seize goods. Bailiffs are entitled to impose an enforcement charge where a visit is made, even if no goods are able to be seized on that visit. However, the charge cannot be imposed again if a further visit is made.

 

6. Mr X accepts that a debt of £32 existed at the time the visit was carried out.

 

7. I appreciate Mr X’s concern that the charge was out of proportion to the amount of debt remaining, but there appears to be a legal basis for the charge. Mr X can dispute the imposition of the charge through the courts.

 

8 From the evidence the Local Government Ombudsman could not conclude that the imposition of the fee was maladministration. She could not therefore be critical of that decision.

[Schindler]

So just how does somebody pay when they are on a Sanction and Zero income, evicted and on the streets?

 

They can't. Bailiff Advice and others don't understand people can be in that position or if they do what should people do?

[Peterbard]

This is a particularly daft thing to say.

[Bailiff Advice]

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/15-007-608

 

A very new decision regarding Colchester Borough Council

 

Complaint concerns bailiff correspondence in respect of the previous occupier.

 

 

Ms X says, despite repeatedly telling the Council she did not drive and ‘Mr Smith’ did not live at her address, it continued to contact her, including using bailiffs, to pay a penalty charge notice (PCN).

 

Ms X says she felt harassed by the Council and threatened by the bailiffs.

 

Ms X says she gave the Council information about her circumstances to explain why these events were stressful for her but it was months before the Council cancelled the penalty charge. Ms X wants the Council to compensate her for the time, trouble and distress its actions caused her.

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/15-007-608

[Bailiff Advice]

The following is another very new decision and concerns Redcar and Cleveland Council

 

 

Complaint that council tax recovery is statute barred and that recovery should include his ex wife.

 

 

 

Analysis:

 

The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr B complains the Council is wrongly pursuing council tax from him for a period in 2009-2011 when he says his ex wife should also be liable. He says the Council is discriminating against him (under the Equalities Act 2010)

 

 

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/council-tax/15-004-430

[Coughdrop]

The following is another very new decision and concerns Redcar and Cleveland Council

 

 

Complaint that council tax recovery is statute barred and that recovery should include his ex wife.

 

 

 

Analysis:

 

The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr B complains the Council is wrongly pursuing council tax from him for a period in 2009-2011 when he says his ex wife should also be liable. He says the Council is discriminating against him (under the Equalities Act 2010)

 

 

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/council-tax/15-004-430

 

"The Council sent a delayed response to Mr B in May 2015. It explained he was solely liable for council tax at his former property because he had requested that his wife’s name be taken off the council tax bills in 2007."

 

What did he expect?

 

The issue of debts involving the public purse becoming time barred is worthy of an entire thread in itself in an appropriate section. For example, I know the HMRC website lists some debts which become time barred, and others which do not. It would be interesting to discuss and unpick this at some stage.