Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain about the failure of the Council and its enforcement agents to notify Mr B that their outstanding council tax debt had not been paid by Mrs B. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainants, who I refer to as Mr and Mrs B, say the Council and its enforcement agents have been at fault because they failed to notify Mr B that Mrs B had not paid their council tax debt. As a result, further costs have been added and the Council has refused to waive them.

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, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr and Mrs B and the Council. I gave the complainants the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr and Mrs B fell into arrears in paying their council tax. They made a payment arrangement which they did not keep to and the Council passed the case on to enforcement agents who act on its behalf to collect the debt. The agents’ fees increased the outstanding debt.
5. Mr B complained to the Council about this. He said he had been working away and that Mrs B, who suffers from memory loss and mental health problems, had not kept up payments and due to her health problems had not responded to letters from the agents. He said there had been a breach in their duty of care and that he should have been informed when Mrs B failed to keep to the arrangement. He said if had he been made aware of the problem earlier he could have taken action to address it.
6. The Council responded to Mr B and explained that both he and Mrs B were jointly and severally liable for the debt and that the letters sent by the agents had been addressed to both him and Mrs B. The Council also advised that between 2017 and 2019 Mr and Mrs B had been sent over 40 letters all in joint names and that it did not accept that his wife’s memory loss from June 2019 was the reason the debt had not been paid.
7. The Council referred Mr B to the form he had completed and returned following a Magistrates’ Court hearing in 2018 which indicated he was aware of the debt. It concluded both Mr and Mrs B had had ample notice to pay the debt and that they had been informed fees would be added if the debt was not paid.

Assessment

8. Given the information the Council provided in its response to Mr B’s complaint, it seems clear he was aware of the debt. Mr and Mrs B are both responsible for the council tax arrears and costs associated with them and I can see no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with this matter

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman