Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council pursued enforcement action against him for non payment of Council tax. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council pursued enforcement action for non payment of Council tax.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the comments of the complainant and the Council and the complainant has had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision.,

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X is a landlord and advised the Council in May 2019 that the property (which he previously let) was being renovated. The Council revised the Council tax bill accordingly. A new bill was issued but Mr X missed the July instalment and a reminder letter was issued. A second reminder was issued in September as further payments were missed.
5. If a council tax payer fails to maintain their instalments, the Council will issue a reminder. If they do not pay within 7 days the Council can apply to the Magistrates’ Court for a liability order. The Magistrates’ Court must grant an order if it believes that a sum is owed and has not been paid. Councils will charge costs for the issue of the summons and the grant of a liability order.
6. Mr X told the Council on 3 October that a new tenant had moved in (and would be liable for the Council tax) but a further instalment had become due. The Council therefore issued a summons on 14 October. Mr X paid the Council tax but not the legal costs associated with the Liability Order. The Council therefore continued with its enforcement and obtained a date to consider the Liability Order.
7. Mr X attended the court and the Council decided to waive the costs.
8. Mr X say that he was left with the time and trouble of attending court.
9. The Council says that it was entitled to pursue the case as the legal costs remained payable. It used its discretion to waive the costs but it argues that it could have obtained a Liability Order for that if it so chose.
10. I am satisfied from the chronology provided by the Council which shows the dates of payments (and their due dates) that there was no fault in the Council’s pursuit of enforcement action against Mr X. I am satisfied that the Council had grounds to obtain a Liability Order; its decision to waive the costs does not mean that it accepted fault in its procedures.
11. In the absence of procedural fault, it is not for the Ombudsman to question the merits of the Council‘s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman