The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not dealt properly with enforcement of a debt. The Council is not at fault.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has not dealt properly with enforcement of a debt because of the way the enforcement agent: Entered his property; Physically interacted with his family; and Acted in respect of the potential removal of property.
Mr X says he suffered distress and is suffering long term illness as a result.
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) We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) If we are satisfied with a council’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
I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered documents he provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the supporting documents it provided.
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
Law, guidance and policies The council may ask bailiffs to attend a person’s property and seize goods to the value of a council tax debt, if it has a liability order from the Magistrates Court.
Bailiffs’ powers to seize goods are set out in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (“the Act”). Schedule 12 of the Act provides a clear procedure for how bailiffs may take control of goods.
A bailiff can only take control of goods belonging to the debtor, which are on the debtor’s premises or on the highway.
To take control of goods a bailiff must do one of the following: secure the goods on the premises on which they find them; if they find goods on a highway, secure them on the highway; either where they find them or within a reasonable distance; remove goods and secure them elsewhere; enter into a controlled goods agreement with the debtor.
The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 (“the Regulations”) set out ways in which a bailiff can secure goods on the premises. The bailiff may secure goods in a cupboard, room, garage or outbuilding. The bailiff may secure a car on the premises or the highway by fitting an immobilisation device. Having taken control of goods, the bailiff must give a notice to the debtor confirming they have taken control of goods and what those goods are.
If the bailiff does not secure the goods in one of the above ways, they have not taken control of the goods.
A bailiff may enter relevant premises to search for and take control of goods. Relevant premises include the debtor’s home. The bailiff may only enter by any door, or any usual means by which entry is gained to the premises. The bailiff cannot force entry if the debt is for a council tax, business rates or a parking or moving traffic offence.
What happened?
This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
Mr X incurred a traffic penalty. He appealed against the penalty and lost.
The Council took enforcement action in respect of the outstanding amount. Mr X did not pay and the Council subsequently used enforcement agents acting on its behalf to recover the amount due.
Analysis I have reviewed CCTV bodycam footage from the enforcement agent covering the entire incident. This shows the agent’s arrival at the premises, his entry to Mr X’s house and his interaction with Mr X, his family and the police.
The enforcement agent showed Mr X his warrant and identification. The enforcement agent’s actions were robust and still proportionate. He explained the situation and process to Mr X. He provided information and justified his actions to the police.
The CCTV clearly shows the enforcement agent did not force entry to Mr X’s house. There is no evidence the enforcement agent interacted with Mr X’s family in an improper way.
The enforcement agent did not remove any property. He explained that he would need to remove property if the outstanding amount was not paid. Mr X’s family paid the outstanding amount on his behalf.
It is clear Mr X did not understand the enforcement process. There is no evidence the enforcement agent acted improperly. This is not fault by the Council.
Final decision
I have not found fault by the Council. I have now completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman