Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the complainant did not receive a council tax reminder and had to pay court costs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the costs have been confirmed in court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, says she did not receive a council tax reminder. She wants the Council to refund the court costs.

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 an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council tax

5. The law says people must pay their council tax before the instalment date stated on the bill. If they do not pay the Council will issue a reminder. If the person does not pay within seven days they lose the right to pay by instalments and must pay all the outstanding council tax. The Council can issue a summons and charge costs. If the person does not pay the amount stated on the summons the magistrates will issue a liability order. A liability order is a court order confirming the person must pay the council tax and costs.

What happened

6. The Council issued a council tax bill requiring monthly payments by the first day of each month. Ms X paid the amount due on 1 April on 3 April. Ms X did not pay the instalment due on 1 May until 27 May. In May, at the request of Ms X, the Council sent two duplicate bills. The bills explain the payment requirements.
7. Ms X paid the June instalment on 18 June and the July payment on 17 July. Ms X did not pay the instalment due on 1 August. The Council issued a reminder on 20 August for payment of £125 by 28 August. Ms X says she did not receive the reminder.
8. Ms X did not pay the instalment due on 1 September. On 4 September the Council cancelled her right to pay by instalments and issued a summons for £750 plus costs of £59. On 5 September Ms X paid £125 and she paid another £125 on 14 September. These were late payments for August and September.
9. The court issued a liability order on 29 September. The court added another £35 in costs. The liability order required Ms X to pay £594.
10. Ms X paid £594 on 5 October. This included the court costs. Ms X wants the Council to refund the costs because she did not receive the reminder. She says she would have paid if she had received the reminder. The Council has told Ms X it issued the reminder and has sent her proof of posting. It declined to refund the costs.

Assessment

11. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Ms X paid every instalment late. The Council issued a reminder after the fifth instalment was late. Ms X did not pay in line with the reminder so the regulations allowed the Council to issue a summons and charge costs. It is unfortunate that Ms X did not receive the reminder but the Council had issued three council tax bills so Ms X knew the payment requirements. In addition, the Council has provided proof of posting and is not responsible for any problems with the post.
12. I also will not start an investigation because the court costs have been confirmed by the court and I have no power to challenge a court decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the costs have been confirmed by the court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman