!

Feedback Officer: Daniella Peterson

Telephone (01472) 323927
When calling please quote reference number NEL/118211 /12

Our Ref: NEL/118211/12

?011
7th r..1'!r"/~mhQr
'1vv_
ItJ"-"

._

Mr

Dear Mr (
Re: Complaint: NEL/118211/12 Council tax 550'

I refer to our letter dated 1ih October 2011 in which we confirm that your
complaint had been escalated to stage three of the council's complaints
procedure, I understand that you were not satisfied with the responses that you
have received in the earlier stages. Stage three of this procedure is a final review
stage and it is my role (as the Chief Executive) to see whether I feel that the
handling of your complaint has been correctly and fairly undertaken. My review
has been undertaken independently of the officers who handled your complaint at
stages one and two .
.As well as reviewing how we dealt with you throughout the complaints process I
have considered your complaint in 6 parts as outlined in your letter dated 23rd
September 2011. This has been done in line with your request.
Considering these points in turn:
1.

Account being passed to bailiffs

The stage one response sent to you on 6th September 2011 clearly outlines
the options that were available to you to avoid the account being sent to the
bailiff. A further opportunity to resolve the matter was offered in our stage two
response and this left the council with no option but to pass your account to
Rosendale's Ltd. It is my conclusion therefore that I do not uphold this part
of your complaint.

2.

The council's income and collection manager

This part of your complaint is about the fact that the council's income and
collection manager accompanied the bailiff on a visit to your home. You state
that this was because of your previous complaint.
This issue has already been addressed in our stage one response and is
covered in the following statement.
"Any manager within the council's Income and Payments service can attend a
property with a bailiff for quality monitoring purposes. Any member of staff
within the Debt Recovery Team can attend a property with a bailiff for training
purposes."
This is normal operating practice within the income and payments section. As
there is no evidence to suggest that the council's income and collection
manager accompanied the bailiff because of your previous complaint I do not
uphold this part of your complaint.

3.

National standards for enforcement agents

It is your opinion that the "Notice of bailiffs attendance" does not comply with
National standards for enforcement agents.
This point has already been answered in some detail as part of our stage one
response, which makes it clear that these are guidelines only. These can be
viewed on the following web page and includes the following statement "This
national guidance does not replace local agreements, existing agency codes
of practice or legislation".
http://webarch ive. nationalarch ives. gov. uk/+/http://www. dca. gov. uk/enforceme
ntlagents02.htm
It is the practice of Rosendale's Ltd to detail fees incurred and leave a copy of
a Schedule 5 notice of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement)
regulations 1992 (and amendments thereof) which details all charges
connected with "distress" along with a request to pay by instalments form, on
the final visit by the first call bailiff.
It would not be appropriate to detail fees any earlier in the process as
Rossendale's Ltd would not know at that stage what further action would be
required in order to collect the sum owing.
We explained our position regarding this matter at both stage one and two of
the complaints process, and consider Rosendale's notice to meet the
councils required standards. I do not uphold this part of your complaint.

4.

Prevention of accounts being passed to Rosendale's by contacting the

council

The council's collection team checks the accuracy of all accounts before
passing them to the enforcement stage. Accounts are only progressed to
enforcement for amounts over 50. If payments are made after the account
has been sent to the court to request a liability order, the final balance that
the order is issued for may be less. As the debt on your account was in the
order of 940.91 it was correctly progressed for recovery.
You introduce Freedom of information (FOI) data relating to the small levels
of debt collected through Liability Orders. The above statement explains how
small debts of this nature can be referred after checking has been carried out.
We have noted your concerns regarding these issues.
You were offered ample opportunity to avoid enforcement action being taken
and did not take it, leaving the council with little option but to involve
Rosendale's Ltd. As previously stated in your stage two response it is the
council's decision to instruct whichever bailiff's they wish and as a council we
currently use Rosendale's for all council tax debt recovery.
In light of the information
complaint.

5.

above I do not uphold this part of your

Bailiff contact
This part of your complaint relates to the "Notice of bailiff's attendance" and
the use of mobile phone numbers as a means of contactot
In line with the stage one and two responses I also agree that it is reasonable
to include a mobile contact number as bailiff's work remotely and are difficult
to contact directly in any other way. The notice also contains an office
number charged at local rates and a fax number as alternative means of
contact. In view of these alternatives I do not uphold this part of your
complaint.

6.

Council's response not relevant to complaint

This issue relates to your stage one response which refers to your meeting
with the councils Income and collections manager which you feel has nothing
to do with your complaint and as such should not have been included.
Although the information does not refer directly to your original complaint the
service felt that this was relevant to the broader issues you raised.
In this section you also refer to the "massive hike in summons penalty costs".
The summons penalty costs were increased to 70
of 23%, and are now inclusive of obtaining a liability
line with national averages for unitary authorities,
chartered institute of public finance and accountancy
is used in order to cover the following costs:

the cost for the use of the court

in April 2011 an increase

order. This increase is in
which according to the
(CIPFA) is 78. This fee

the wages of the staff employed to collect Council Tax and Business
Rates
ICT costs

postage

Bearing in mind the additional costs of chasing late payment of council tax
the amount of summons penalty costs remain reasonable when compared
with the national average and our neighbouring council's of Hull and East
Riding who charge 80.
Taking all of this into account I do not uphold this part of your complaint.
I have reviewed how your complaint has been handled and found that all
stages have been addressed in a timely and appropriate manner in line with
our complaints policy. Your complaint is therefore not upheld.
My investigations are now complete and this formal response exhausts the
Council's Complaints Process. If you are not satisfied with this response and the
outcome of your complaint, you have the right to take the matter to the Local
Government Ombudsman, whose contact details are as follows:
LGO Advice Team,
The Local Government Ombudsman,
PO Box 4771,
Coventry CV40EH
Tel: 0845602 1983
Fax: 024 7682 0001
This has been, of necessity, a formal response driven by our Complaints Policy
and procedures, designed to ensure full, fair and impartial examination of
concerns which arise. I am personally always very keen to see how we can
improve our services and learning from complaints is one way of achieving this.
Although you may not be happy about all aspects of my conclusions, I am hoping
you will accept this matter has had proper consideration.

/
Tony Hunter

Chief
Exe?/

/' /