Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly took legal action against him when he had paid his council tax. The Council has apologised for its fault and cancelled the costs of the court summons. There is no remaining injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly issued a summons and took him to court for not paying his council tax. Mrs Y had paid the council tax but the Council had not allocated the payment to the account. Mr X says the Council should pay compensation for his time, loss of earnings and the experience of attending court, including how the Council’s officer spoke to him.

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:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s information, comments and reply to the draft decision statement. I have considered the complaint correspondence and clarified with the Council what happened.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council says in August 2019 it received a payment for council tax signed in the name of Mrs Y. The Council says it did not allocate the payment to the account. It could not identify the account due, it says, to its fault of not having previously recorded Mrs Y as having joint liability to pay council tax. The payment did not have a reference number.
5. Last October the Council sent Mr X a reminder to pay the council tax and in November a summons to court for non-payment. The Council says Mr X did not contact it. Mr X in reply to my draft decision says this is: ‘absolutely right, I had no need to contact the Council as the tax had been cleared in full…’
6. In December 2019 Mr X attended court. He says the hearing did not start on time. The Council officer spoke to him without an introduction and asked, “what are you doing here”. Mr X says the officer treated him like a fool or a naughty schoolboy. He says the experience of going to court was humiliating and stressful. Mr X told the Council’s officer that the council tax bill was paid.
7. The Council says Mr X left court before the hearing. It tells me it obtained a liability order after he had left. It says the officers deny speaking inappropriately to Mr X and asked relevant questions. The Council says three days after court it updated the account to include Mrs Y’s details and allocated the council tax payment, which it had found. On 11 December it withdrew from its system the liability order and £80 summons costs.
8. The Council in its complaint replies apologised to Mr X for the service failure and the resulting issues. It has given officers advice about the practice issues arising in this case.

Analysis

9. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reason:
10. The Ombudsman investigates fault causing injustice. The Council has taken appropriate action by apologising for its error or errors which led to the summons. It has cancelled the cost of the summons which remedies the injustice. The Council has also given advice to officers.
11. The Council did not cause the claimed injustice of the attendance at court. Mr X should have contacted the Council on receipt of its reminder notice or summons and explained his partner had paid the council tax. He had two months to do so after the reminder notice and nearly three weeks following the summons (see paragraph 5 above). If he had contacted the Council, it would have found the payment and subsequent events would not have happened.
12. Investigation is not likely to clarify what was said at court, given the officers have a different recall of the conversations. I do not consider the conversation as reported by Mr X has caused injustice. Generally, what happens at court is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This includes the timing of a hearing which is not an administrative function of the Council.
13. It is surprising that the Council obtained a liability order, having been told the bill was paid. In such a scenario officers should have withdrawn the case until they had checked the position. There is no evidence this has caused Mr X injustice. I note the Council says it has withdrawn the liability order from its system.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly took legal action against him when he had paid his council tax. The Council has apologised for its fault and cancelled the cost of the court summons. There is no remaining injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman