Curb excessive charges imposed by bailiffs, LGO tells councils

The comments from the LGO, Dr Jane Martin, came after she issued a report criticising Blaby Council over its use of bailiffs employed to collect council tax debts.

The Ombudsman launched an investigation after receiving a complaint from Mrs S, who owed arrears.

The complainant argued that Blaby’s bailiffs had not acted within the law and overcharged her. She accused the council of failing to answer properly her queries and complaints.

Mrs S also said the bailiffs had obtained money from her partner by clamping and taking occupation of a car that did not belong to him.

The LGO found that the bailiffs had charged eight statutory visit fees on two occasions for one visit by one bailiff. This was because Mrs S had arrears for eight years – and therefore eight accounts.

The bailiffs had also failed to carry out DVLA checks on the ownership of the vehicles.

In addition to finding a failure to control the bailiffs, the Ombudsman concluded that the council had failed to properly investigate Mrs S’s complaints.

When the LGO became involved, Blaby reduced the fees charged by £630.50. It also conducted DVLA checks which revealed that the vehicles did not belong to Mrs S or her partner. It therefore removed the remaining levies and associated fees.

The council also negotiated a new contract with its bailiffs that meant only one fee could be charged for one visit, even if multiple accounts were involved.

Issuing a finding of maladministration causing injustice, the Ombudsman welcomed Blaby’s agreement to pay £300 to Mrs S for the distress and inconvenience caused.

This sum will be offset against the complainant’s council tax arrears.

The LGO called on Mrs S to enter into regular payment arrangement with the council to avoid future action, such as an attachment of earnings through her or her partner.

Dr Jane Martin said: “I am issuing this report in the public interest because the practice of bailiffs’ ‘double charging’ for visits is not uncommon. These bailiffs were acting on behalf of the council and it was within the council’s control to contractually curb excessive charges by the bailiffs. I would expect local authorities and their agents to consider the reasonableness of their practice in this area in future and I am pleased that this council has now done so.”

The LGO added: “The council has an obligation to collect council tax and to pursue people who do not pay. Mrs S has not paid her council tax for some considerable time. She also failed to honour the payment arrangements made to clear the debt. So the council was entitled to take enforcement action against her, including instructing bailiffs. But the council should ensure that the bailiffs who act on its behalf comply with the relevant regulations and that debtors are charged only sums which are properly due. It is clear this did not happen in Mrs S’s case.”