Manchester City Council (19 018 071)
Category : Benefits and tax > Council tax
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 13 Mar 2020
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council has dealt with her Council tax payments and its subsequent enforcement. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and part of the complaint is out of time.
The complaint
- Ms X complains about the way the Council has dealt with her Council tax payments and its subsequent enforcement.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I have considered the comments of the complainant and the Council and the complainant has had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision.,
What I found
- Ms X disputes her Council tax bill and payments from 2017 onwards. However, the complaint was made to us in February 2020 and I see no reason to disapply the 12 month rule above. I have therefore considered her complaint from April 2018 onwards.
- The Council says that the first Council tax payment in 2018/9 was on 12 June by which time the Council had issued a summons. Although a payment was made, Ms X had lost the right to pay by instalments and so a Liability Order was obtained on 28 June. Although further payments were made, Ms X remained in arrears and the Council says she did not respond to the threat of enforcement by bailiffs.
- In the absence of any evidence to dispute the dates and payment information provided by the Council I must conclude that the Council has acted without fault. Its enforcement with the use of bailiffs is not therefore the result of administrative fault and the Ombudsman cannot be critical of the Council’s actions.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman