The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complained the Council should not have taken recovery action for council tax as she was unable to travel during lockdown to make payments. She also says the Council should have notified her by email that it was seeking a summons to give her the opportunity to pay. There is no evidence of fault in the Council taking recovery action or fault in how it notified Ms X that it was seeking a court summons.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council should not have taken recovery action for council tax as she was unable to travel during lockdown to make payments. She also says the Council should have notified her by email that it was seeking a summons to give her the opportunity to pay.
Ms X says these failures by the Council resulted in it passing the matter to enforcement agents which incurred further costs.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
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 complaint and the documents provided by the complainant; made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided; discussed the issues with the complainant; sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.
What I found
On 23 March 2020 when the Government announced the first COVID-19 lockdown, Ms X was at her partner’s home in London. Ms X says the rules announced meant she was unable to return to her home in Brighton until 4 July. Ms X therefore believed she should not be liable for council tax at her property in Brighton for the period 23 March to 3 July because the law prevented her from travelling to her home.
Ms X emailed the Council on 4 August 2020 explaining the above and advising she was vacating the property on 24 August. She asked the Council to send her a bill for the period 4 July to 24 August 2020 and said she would attempt to pay it.
The Council responded on 18 August. It said while it sympathised that she was unable to occupy her address the only council tax exemption was based on a legal prohibition to return to the property and the COVID-19 instructions were guidelines and it believed returning to her home would have been deemed essential travel. It said no discount or exemption was available but it would be happy to discuss a payment arrangement if she was experiencing financial difficulties. The Council also advised Ms X to complete an online moving form and to inform it of her new address so it could issue her closing bill.
Ms X continued to correspond with the Council maintaining her position that she was not allowed to travel and so she should not be liable for council tax for the period she was not at her property. The Council also maintained its position that no discount or exemption was applicable. It advised Ms X her account was closed as of 25 August with an outstanding balance of £393.58. It also explained that as no forwarding address had been provided, any further legal documents it was required to serve would be sent by post to her last known address.
Ms X continued to email the Council arguing that the travel restrictions were the law and she was prevented from travelling to her home. She submitted a formal complaint on 27 August. She said was unable to travel as it was the law and she was threatened with fines and causing people to die if she did. She said she was not legally liable for council tax when she was legally prevented from travelling.
The Council wrote to Ms X on 27 August saying it did not uphold her complaint as the government guidance was not to travel unless absolutely necessary. It provided links to the advice from the government website and said it did not agree she was forbidden by law from travelling. The Council said it would review its position if Ms X was able to provide confirmation that all travel was prohibited. It also said temporary absences did not mean council tax liability ceased and that it was unable to reduce the charge.
Ms X replied quoting guidance and saying that regulations said no person may leave the place they are living without reasonable excuse. She said the list of reasonable excuses did include moving house but she did not have a reasonable excuse as it was not necessary for her to leave her partner’s house in London and return to her home in Brighton.
The Council issued a reminder for unpaid council tax on 13 January 2021. The notice said she owed £390.91 and that if a summons was issued this could result in addition costs of £127.50 being added to the account. The notice set out details of how to pay which included by direct debit, internet payment, its 24 hour automated telephone banking using a debit or credit card, at any local PayPoint or by Paypal.
Ms X contacted the Council the following day saying she believed there was an agreement that she was not liable for the charge and it had been written off. She also said she had now lost her home and said she was extremely vulnerable and experiencing extreme mental anguish. She said the Council was threatening her with a court order even when she had explained why she did not consider she was liable. She said she would have to pay in cash as she could not pay electronically. On 20 January the Council sent a barcode so she could pay by cash at a local PayPoint.
The Council sent Ms X a stage two complaint response on 20 January 2021. It said that it did not consider Ms X was prevented from returning to her home in Brighton and that it considered she had chosen to continue to live in London with her partner. It felt that returning home would have constituted a reasonable excuse.
On 11 January 2022 Ms X emailed the Council saying she was shocked, confused and frightened to have received a communication from an enforcement agent. Her email indicated she had previously been contacted by the enforcement agents who indicated they were acting on behalf of the Council. Ms X said she believed that after her last communication in January 2021, the Council had written off the debt as a gesture of goodwill. She requested an in-person meeting with someone who had the authority to resolve this issue.
The Council responded on 12 January saying it was treating her email as a formal complaint. It provided the stage one complaint response on 14 January 2022. The Council provided copies of all written notices sent by the enforcement agent with the first one dated September 2021. It said that it confirmed in January 2021 that no reduction had been offered but asked her to provide proof if it had offered to reduce the amount owed. The Council says Ms X never provided any proof. The Council said a meeting could be arranged but it would only offer face to face appointments where the issue could not be resolved in writing or by phone. It said it was not refusing an in-person meeting but it needed to further understand the reason for the appointment. It said it had correctly billed Ms X and the charge is due for payment and so it was not sure what a face to face meeting would achieve.
Ms X responded saying she was willing to pay some money, albeit under duress but she wanted to do this in person and with a senior officer in attendance. She said she was dealing with issues relating to the enforcement agents separately. It said that as the debt was with the enforcement agents she would need to make payments directly to the agents. The Council provided details of an appointment it had booked for her on 25 January 2022 but stated it would not accept any payment from her on that date as she must make payments to the enforcement agents.
Ms X emailed the Council again on 24 January. She said that in January 2021 she had indicated that she could pay the full amount in cash but needed the Council to confirm in writing that a journey to make a payment would be considered essential and therefore legal. She says that as the Council did not provide this she assumed the matter had been dropped and the debt written off. She said the Council had sent letters to her previous address in September and October 2021 even though it knew she had moved out. She said that therefore she did not receive these letters and the Council had made no other effort to notify her that a court summons had been granted. She indicated she was deferring the meeting on 25 January and asked further questions of the Council.
The Council replied saying any decision about travelling was a personal decision for Ms X to make, including travelling to pay a council tax bill on receipt of a reminder notice. The Council said it had never confirmed the debt had been written off and had in fact stated repeatedly that the charge was correct and due for payment. The Council explained that while it was aware Ms X had vacated the property in Brighton, she never provided a forwarding address. Therefore it wrote to her last known address as it has no obligation to send letters by email, only by hard copy in the post.
Ms X contacted the Council again saying that her financial circumstances and mental health had improved since her emails of 2021. She said she now had the means to pay the amount owed even though she still believed she should not be charged for the period 26 March to 3 July 2020. She asked the Council to accept a payment of £393.58 to consider the matter closed.
The Council responded saying it did not accept her offer and referred her back to the enforcement agents in order to settle the debt in full including the costs incurred. Dissatisfied Ms X made a complaint to the Ombudsman.
Analysis Ms X complains about the Council taking recovery action for council tax arrears and that it did not notify her by email that it was taking this action.
The information provided shows that Ms X considers the Council should not have charged her for council tax at a property she was unable to live in during the first COVID-19 lockdown. Although Ms X has now offered to pay the amount, she still does not accept she is liable for the period 26 March to 3 July 2020. As issues of liability can be appealed to the Valuation Tribunal Service, I have not considered this as part of my investigation.
The information provided shows that Ms X notified the Council that she was leaving her property in Brighton. There is nothing to suggest that she completed the online form notifying the Council of this move. As a result, Ms X did not provide a forwarding address and I accept Ms X was not required to do this.
When the Council began recovery action it did not have a current address for Ms X and so wrote to her at the last known address. I am satisfied this was the correct action. In taking this view I have considered the legislation quoted by the Council in its responses to Ms X and also that it told Ms X in an email dated 20 August 2020 that it would issue any arrears notices and notification of court proceedings to her last known address.
While I find no fault in the fact the Council sent notices regarding recovery action to Ms X’s last known address, she complains that as the Council knew she had moved out and it had her email address, it should have emailed her to tell of its action. I can understand why Ms X takes this view but I am not persuaded the failure to email her amounts to fault. The Council never gave any sort of undertaking that it would email Ms X and I have seen nothing to suggest she requested this. It would be too onerous on a council to expect it to meet the requirements of legislation to send notices by post and also to email every account holder. However, if someone made such a request as a reasonable adjustment under the Equalities Act, I would expect the Council to consider this. There is nothing to suggest Ms X requested email notification as a reasonable adjustment.
I note Ms X made an offer to the Council to pay the outstanding council tax charges in full and that the Council did not accept this offer. I had wondered whether Ms X experienced financial difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic which affected her ability to pay. The Council does have a general discretion under section 13A(1)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Its response to my enquiries suggests there is no information about this currently on its website and there is nothing to suggest the Council considered using discretion in this case. However, I am not persuaded Ms X presented her circumstances in such a way that suggested to the Council she was in financial difficulties as she did offer to pay the amount in full, in cash. So while I do not find fault based on the information I have seen, it would be open to Ms X to show the Council she was experiencing financial difficulties and ask it to now consider using its discretion to reduce the amount owed.
Final decision
I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman