Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) decision....Vulnerability and the need to provide evidence.

[Bailiff Advice]

The following is another very recent decision from the Local Government Ombudsman on the subject of vulnerability. Once again, the LGO confirm that evidence needs to be provided if a person considers that they may be 'vulnerable'.

 

 

 

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

 

PS: The following is a short version of the decision. A link to read the full report is at the end of this post.

 

 

The complaint

 

Mr X complains that the Council has unreasonably taken Council tax enforcement action against him despite his vulnerability.

 

 

What I found

 

The law says people must pay their council tax before the installment date stated on the bill. If people pay late on more than two occasions they lose the right to pay by installments. The Council can then demand that they pay the full amount which is due for the rest of the year. If they do not pay the Council can serve a summons and ask the magistrates for a liability order.

 

A liability order is an order confirming the person must pay the council tax and costs. Further costs are incurred when magistrates grant a liability order. If someone does not pay the council tax, and the costs, the Council can ask enforcement agents to collect the debt. Enforcement agents charge fees which must also be paid.

 

Mr X has council tax arrears from 2013/14 and 2014/15. The Council has provided evidence of Mr X’s non payment of Council tax and the courts upheld the summonses when they issued the Liability Orders.

 

Mr X did not make any arrangements to pay his council tax arrears. In November 2014

Mr X told the Council he was a vulnerable person. The Council asked him to provide evidence

and held his account for a month to give him time to provide the evidence.

 

Mr X did not provide evidence

of his vulnerability and the Council sent his account to enforcement agents (bailiffs) for collection. Councils can use enforcement agents to enforce Council tax debts. Mr X says they should not be used as he is vulnerable person.

 

The enforcement agents wrote to Mr X in November 2014

asking for medical evidence of his vulnerability signed by his GP or a medical professional.

They did not receive any medical evidence from Mr X.

 

In September 2015 Mr X sent the Council a copy of a letter from his local mental health team

inviting him to an appointment

as evidence of his vulnerable status.

 

In October the enforcement agents wrote to Mr X detailing the amounts he had to pay to clear his council tax arrears.

Mr X provided the council tax department with a copy of a letter to the Housing Office on 25 January 2016 about his mental health. The Council told the enforcement agents who arranged for its welfare team to deal with him as they are experienced in dealing with vulnerable people.

 

The enforcement agents returned Mr X’s accounts to the Council as they could not contact him.

 

The Council contacted Mr X numerous times about the arrears on this council tax accounts. The law allows councils to instruct enforcement agents once the court has issued a liability order.

 

The law also says that the court costs and fees charged by the

enforcement agents must be paid.

 

Although Mr X says he is a vulnerable person, he did not provide evidence of this to the Council until January 2016. Without evidence to support Mr X’s contention that enforcement agents should not be used, there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to utilise them.

 

Final decision

 

There is no evidence the Council has been unreasonable in its decision to take enforcement action against Mr X for council tax arrears.

 

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/council-tax/16-001-201

[bhall]

Interesting

[colin11]

The trouble is that the famous Social Media debt groups encourage people to claim vulnerability when they get a visit from bailiffs

 

Then if that works and the bailiffs withdraw, The debtors seem to think that means they don't still have to pay the debt at all

 

I have even seen admin of the biggest group telling people to go to the doctors, Claim to be depressed and get a prescription for antidepressants, They don't actually need to take them but they can then claim vulnerability when bailiffs turn up

 

It is worrying that so many people claim vulnerability, It is no wonder that Bailiffs often ignore the claims, And it is hurting the genuinely vulnerable people

[Bailiff Advice]

The trouble is that the famous Social Media debt groups encourage people to claim vulnerability when they get a visit from bailiffs

 

It is worrying that so many people claim vulnerability, It is no wonder that Bailiffs often ignore the claims, And it is hurting the genuinely vulnerable people

 

I was looking at the F/B pages yesterday and noticed a query from a lady who has a 3 month old baby and 3 other children and she wanted the local authority to take the debt back from Rossendales. Apparently she has council tax arrears of £900 and the bailiff stated that he would accept a repayment arrangement of £40 per week (which is actually quite reasonable).

 

She has already paid almost £300 to Rossendales and accordingly, they would have already deducted the compliance fee in full and used part of the balance to apportion against their remaining bailiff fees.

 

She was advised to sent the useless 'vulnerable household' letter that continues to be provided on the F/B pages. This is the template that was dreamed up by the same person who flooded the internet with his daft NOROIRA (Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access).

 

The following is taken from the local authorities reply (to her 'vulnerable household' letter):

 

I refer to your recent correspondence regarding your council tax arrears and your request for your account to be recalled from our enforcement agency due to vulnerability.

 

There is no specific definition of vulnerability within the legislation quoted, a decision of vulnerability is assessed by the persons circumstances are not on the rigid structure for example whether or not the household has children resident.

 

Your children are not the debtors as referred to in the passage of legislation that you have quoted, you are the debtor. The enforcement agent will be attending to speak to you and not to interact with any minors present.

 

If you believe that the attendance of an enforcement agent at your property would provide specific issues for your child with existing difficulties you should provide evidence to support your claim to vulnerability.

 

PS: After posting a copy of the local authorities reply....she was told to write back to the council to inform them that her 3 month old child.......is in fact a NEWBORN and that this new information will lead to the council recalling the debt !!!