Woman suffers 20 seizures after being wrongly threatened with council bailiffs

A terrified woman suffered over 20 seizures after being wrongly threatened with bailiffs to pay council tax which she didn’t owe in the first place.

The woman and her partner, from Knowsley , were subjected to a “weekend of fear” in the distressing ordeal.

Knowsley Council obtained two court orders against the couple despite being told three times that they had moved house.

Even after admitting its mistake, the local authority did not offer the couple compensation despite having the power to do so, instead saying they needed to lodge a claim with the council’s insurers.

Following an investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman, the council has now been ordered to apologise to the couple, known only as Mr X and Mrs Y, and pay them £900 – well above the sum it usually requires.

According to the Ombudsman’s report, the couple moved from one part of Knowsley to another in October 2017, informing the council tax department on the same day.

However, the council failed to close the account for their old property, which was £101 in credit, and at the end of the month sent a summons for unpaid council tax to their old address.

A neighbour forwarded the summons to the couple’s new home, prompting them to visit the council’s offices and explain that they had moved house.

Once again, however, the council failed to end their council tax liability for the old house and sent another council tax reminder to them in November.

Mr X and Ms Y then made a second trip to the council’s offices and were told the problem would be sorted out.

However, it was not sorted out and the neighbour stopped forwarding their post, meaning the couple did not receive the council tax reminder sent in February 2018 or the court summons sent in March and June.

Without the couple’s knowledge, the council was able to secure two liability orders against them for unpaid council tax, which it passed to bailiffs in July 2018.

Those bailiffs were able to trace the couple to their new address, sending them a notice demanding payment of £1,828.99, with the threat that if they did not pay, a bailiff would come and seize their belongings.

Mr X and Ms Y received the bailiffs’ letter on Saturday, July 21, and the Ombudsman described what followed as the couple’s “weekend of fear”.

Chris covers local government and politics for the ECHO, focusing on Knowsley and Halton.

You can read more of his stories here.

You can follow Chris on Twitter here, or contact him on Facebook.

Email him on christopher.mckeon@reachplc.com

Keep up to date with the latest breaking news here, and get all of the ECHO’s politics coverage here.

Like the ECHO Facebook page and follow @livechonews on Twitter

In its report, the Ombudsman said: “They say they were terrified. Mr X feared he would lose his car and his job.

“Ms Y suffers from convulsions and says she had more than 20 seizures over the weekend. She says she became anxious and restless.

“She saw her doctor on the Monday and says she needed extra medication and antidepressants.”

To make matters worse, the council had realised its mistake two days before the couple received the bailiffs’ letter when an officer noticed that everything it had posted to the couple since November 2017 had been returned unopened by Royal Mail.

The officer discovered that the council had failed to process the couple’s change of address and the bailiffs were called off.

However, nobody told the couple.

The Ombudsman wrote: “The Council knew it had sent the accounts to enforcement agents before it discovered its error. It should have immediately contacted Mr X and Ms Y to tell them what happened and what it would do to put this right. It did not do this.

“Mr X and Ms Y then has a weekend of fear. I accept this fear affected Ms Y’s medical condition and increased her convulsions.”

The following Monday, the couple complained to the council, demanding an apology, compensation and a face-to-face meeting with the chief executive.

The chief executive, Mike Harden, replied more than two weeks later, accepting that the council had made a mistake and apologising.

However, he declined to offer compensation, saying: “Claims for compensation are considered by the Council’s Insurance service. Should you wish to provide full details of your loss with supporting evidence, I will ensure that your claim is given due consideration.”

The Ombudsman found that this response was “not appropriate” as the council has the legal power to provide compensation if it has made an error causing injustice to someone.

The investigation also criticised Knowsley Council for failing to put the matter to their insurers themselves, despite the couple sending them all the necessary evidence.

In its decision, made in October last year but only published this month, the Ombudsman concluded: “Where action by enforcement agents occurred because of fault by a council, we anticipate the council should provide a distinct remedy for the distress this caused.

“We usually recommend a ‘modest’ amount of between £100 and £300. We recommend more if the distress is greater, an example is when the complainant is vulnerable.

“In this case Ms Y’s health suffered. I consider this case merits double our usual highest amount.

“The Council also caused Ms X unnecessary time and trouble. We usually recommend a payment between £100 and £300 for time and trouble. I consider the unnecessary time and trouble the Council caused Mr X and Ms Y merits the high end of the range.”

A Knowsley Council spokesperson said “We manage over 68,500 Council Tax accounts and we unfortunately made a mistake with this particular account. This case isn’t representative of the usual service we provide.

“The Council has apologised to the couple for the inconvenience and poor customer service received on this occasion, as well as providing them with reassurance that the matter has been fully investigated and action has been taken.”