The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement agents visiting Mr X about debts he did not owe. This is because the Council has agreed our invitation to provide a suitable remedy for the injustice its faults caused.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the actions of the Council and its enforcement agents concerning council tax debts owed by other people. He said this caused him embarrassment and stress, he padlocked his gate because he feared enforcement agents might return, and he spent time dealing with the matter.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended) This means that, in this case, we hold the Council ultimately responsible for its own actions and for the actions of the enforcement agents and the tracing agents the enforcement agents used.
We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council. I invited the Council to remedy the complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The information I saw suggested that, if we were to investigate, it is likely we would find fault by the Council and those acting on its behalf, as: The enforcement agents wrongly decided two debtors lived at Mr X’s address.
One debtor had told the Council their correct address, but the Council delayed telling the enforcement agents, who meanwhile visited Mr X’s home looking for the debtor. That visit would probably not have happened but for the Council’s delay.
There were avoidable delays and confusion in the Council’s and enforcement agents’ communications with Mr X and responses to his complaints.
The Council apologised to Mr X. The enforcement agents offered Mr X £150, later increased to £200, which he did not accept. As explained above, the Ombudsman treats that as an offer on the Council’s behalf.
I considered that was inadequate remedy for Mr X’s avoidable distress, justified sense of anger that the agent’s visit need not have happened (compounded by the embarrassment that someone he knew happened to be there when the enforcement agent visited), and his time and trouble pursuing the matter.
At my invitation the Council agreed to pay Mr X £600 rather than the £200 previously offered, within four weeks of today’s date.
The Council has also changed its procedures to avoid undue delay sharing information where enforcement agents are involved. It will also coordinate with enforcement agents to ensure complaint-handling timescales are met and to avoid someone having to go through both the enforcement agents’ and Council’s complaint procedures.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the payment the Council has agreed, and the other actions taken, are a satisfactory remedy for the injustice the faults caused Mr X.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman