The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained about Council delays carrying out a search linked to the sale of his home. He also said the Council made it difficult for him to complain, did not provide evidence to support its decision, and pursued a council tax debt through the court after saying it would not. The Council was not at fault for delays in the sale process, or for seeking recovery of unpaid council tax. The Council was at fault for delays in the complaint process but has already apologised for this.
The complaint
Mr X complained the council: Delayed responding to a local search request from his buyer which delayed the sale of his home by about six to eight weeks.
Placed barriers in front of him making a complaint and did not provide evidence to support its decision.
Pursued a council tax debt against him by sending a court summons despite saying it would not do so while it investigated his complaint.
Mr X said the council’s delays resulted in added council tax, mortgage, and property related costs. The difficulty he faced complaining and receiving a court summons caused him stress and anxiety.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
As part of the investigation I have considered the following: The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
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.
To use the various powers available to it to recover unpaid council tax, a council has to apply to the Magistrates Court for a liability order against those it believes are liable. Once a council has obtained a liability order it can take recovery action.
A liability order gives a council legal powers to take enforcement action to collect the money owed.
Councils, in exceptional circumstances, effectively write off some or all of a council tax debt by using their discretionary powers under S13A(1)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended).
Complaint process The Council’s website has details of its complaint process. People can complain online, by telephone, or by completing a ‘have your say’ form in writing.
At stage one, the Council will respond to the complaint within ten working days.
At stage two, a senior officer will investigate and respond within 28 days.
What happened I have summarised below some of the key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
Mr X accepted an offer to sell his home in July 2020. His buyer was paying cash and his estate agent told him they expected the sale to take about eight weeks to complete.
During the sale, Mr X said his estate agent told him his buyer’s solicitor was struggling to get replies from the Council – citing a lack of staff and staff working remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The sale of Mr X’s home was completed in December 2020. He then received a council tax bill from the Council for £651.69.
Mr X complained to the Council on 10 May 2021 about delays providing conveyancing information, resulting in increased mortgage payments and council tax liability.
The Council asked for more information on 26 May.
Mr X said he lost rent at £675 a month and incurred more mortgage payments and service charge costs. He said it was insulting to get a council tax bill for this period as well. He asked the Council to waive the tax.
Mr X also gave the Council an email from his estate agent on 12 July. The estate agent said: “there was a delay with the council’s [sic] providing information to the buyer’s solicitor regarding their local search. Sorry I can’t give much more information that [sic] that but it was widely known the [sic] due to this delay, the time it took to complete was vastly increased as search results pre-covid took 7-10 days max and they were at the time of your sale taking 6 weeks”.
A planning officer emailed Mr X on 2 August. The officer said the Council received the search request on 26 August 2020 and responded within seven days, on 1 September. They attached a spreadsheet of search requests as evidence.
Mr X said the spreadsheet had no dates and did not confirm the Council sent a response in seven days. He said the solicitors and estate agents both claimed it took the Council six weeks to reply.
A benefits and tax officer emailed Mr X on 21 September. They said the tax charge was correct and cannot be reduced. They said the Council had withdrawn the recovery documents but the balance of £651.69 remained payable.
The Council sent its stage one complaint response on 24 September. It confirmed it responded to the search request within a week. It also said Mr X remained liable for the tax until his home was sold. It asked him to pay.
Mr X replied on 27 September. He said the Council had simply restated what it said on 2 August, which was inadequate. He asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two.
The Council sent its stage two complaint response on 26 January 2022. It said: Its stage one response took an unacceptable amount of time and it apologised.
It put a hold on tax recovery pending the outcome of Mr X’s complaint and any complaint to the Ombudsman.
It issued a response to the buyer’s search company on 1 September 2020, within six days of receiving the local search request on 26 August.
Mr X’s email stating Council searches were taking six weeks due to COVID-19 related delays does mean it took the Council that long in this case.
There is no evidence the Council delayed responding to a local search request. It responded promptly.
My investigation Mr X told me the Council made him complain in writing and he had to hand-deliver a letter to the Council’s office. Mr X is also unhappy the Council would not give him a copy of its correspondence about the searches. He considers this was deliberate to conceal the delay.
In response to my enquiries, the Council told me it did not keep a copy of the original email about the searches on 26 August 2020. It was standard practice to delete emails after the search results were sent. It said any issues are usually raised within a few days, but Mr X did not complain until nine months later.
The Council said Mr X did not need to hand deliver his complaint. He could have complained online or by telephone.
The Council said there was a delay receiving Mr X’s complaint, because staff were working remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It also assigned the complaint to the wrong team because Mr X gave limited information. Nevertheless, the Council apologised for the delay.
The Council said it put recovery action on hold while it investigated Mr X’s stage one complaint. It then recommenced recovery action when he did not pay. It did try to prevent the court summons being issued when it learnt Mr X had progressed to stage two. Unfortunately, it was too late. The Council confirmed it has now withdrawn the summons and placed a hold on recovery action.
Analysis The Council gave a specific date on which it replied to the local search request. Unfortunately, the Council no longer has the correspondence for me to verify this. The Council’s policy was to delete search emails after sending the results. Organisations like the Council have data retention policies. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to say whether those policies comply with data protection rules. That is the role of the Information Commissioner.
The Council did provide me with an internal email about the local searches which suggests an officer completed the search on 1 September 2020.
While I have not seen evidence proving the Council sent the results on that date, Mr X has not given an exact date either and his estate agent has not been able to confirm this. The estate agent said there was a delay in the Council sending search results to the buyer, but they did not have specifics and made general comments about how long searches took at that time.
Mr X alleges the Council caused a delay to the sale of his home of six to eight weeks. Unfortunately, he does not have proof or documentary evidence of this. I therefore do not find the Council at fault for any delays in the sale process.
When Mr X did not pay his council tax bill the Council was entitled to seek recovery. Mr X is unhappy the Council restarted the recovery process after initially putting it on hold. I appreciate it was distressing for Mr X to receive a court summons. However, there is no law which says councils must stop recovery action because someone appeals or complains. I therefore do not find the Council at fault.
The Council has now withdrawn the summons and it is worth stating that a liability order has no effect on someone’s credit rating.
Turning to Mr X’s complaint, I have not seen evidence the Council made him submit it in writing or that he had to hand deliver it. He could have done so online or by telephone.
After receiving Mr X’s complaint, the Council initially assigned it to the wrong department. Its stage one response was therefore delayed. While I appreciate the Council’s explanation, the delay was significant and was fault.
The Council’s stage two response was also significantly delayed. Again, that was fault.
The delays in the complaint process caused Mr X avoidable frustration. The Council apologised for this in its stage two response. I consider this to be a suitable remedy for the injustice Mr X suffered, and it is in line with what we would recommend.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault for delays in the sale process, or for seeking recovery of unpaid council tax. The Council was at fault for delays in the complaint process but has already apologised for this.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman