Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about council tax fees. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition the fees were confirmed by the court and the Ombudsman cannot question a court decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about a fee of £85 that the Council has added to his council tax. Mr X wants the Council to remove the fee.

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 response. I found out from the Council that the debt has increased to £160. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to 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 can serve a summons and ask the magistrates for a liability order. Costs are incurred as soon as the Council issues the summons. A liability order is a court order confirming the person must pay the council tax and costs. Further costs are incurred when a liability order is granted. If someone does not pay the council tax, and the costs, the Council can ask bailiffs to collect the debt. Bailiffs charge fees. The initial bailiff fee is a £75 compliance fee.

What happened

6. Mr X was required to pay his council tax on the 15th day of each month. In August he wrote to the Council to say he would be moving in October. The Council did not receive this letter.
7. Mr X paid the council tax due in July. He did not pay the instalment due on 15 August. The Council sent a reminder on 2 September which Mr X did not receive.
8. Mr X did not pay the instalment due on 15 September. The Council served a summons on 24 September and charged costs of £85. Mr X called the Council a few days later. He complained and said he would not pay the costs. He said he had stopped making payments because he did not want to pay too much council tax due to the move. He did not want to have to chase the Council for a refund.
9. Mr X moved in October. He paid the outstanding council tax but did not pay the costs. The Council obtained a liability order which added costs of £35.
10. In response to his complaint the Council explained it did not receive his letter in August saying he was moving. It apologised for a delay in responding to his complaint. It removed the £35 fee, due to the delayed response, but said the remaining fee of £85 remained because it had served the summons correctly.
11. The Council gave Mr X a deadline to pay the £85. Mr X has not paid so the Council instructed bailiffs. The bailiffs charged a £75 compliance fee. Mr X now owes £160. If Mr X continues not to pay he may incur additional bailiff fees. Mr X says he may pay and then take the Council to the small claims court.

Assessment

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It is unfortunate that the Council did not get Mr X’s letter but this had no bearing on what happened. Mr X was required to pay his council tax, as billed, until the date he moved out. Mr X paid a council tax instalment in July but then made no further payments until October. As he missed the payments due in August and September there is no suggestion of fault in the Council’s decision to issue a summons. And costs are incurred as soon as the summons is issued.
13. Mr X says the Council lied in the final complaint response because it said he would not be in credit if he paid as billed. He says he would have been in credit. I do not have the figures to know if Mr X would have been in credit but, even if the account would have been in credit, this represents an error, not a lie. It does not require an investigation and it does not alter the fact that Mr X was required to pay his council tax in August and September.
14. The court issued a liability order which confirmed Mr X must pay the council tax and costs. The law prevents me from intervening in a court decision. In addition, Mr X has not paid the £85 so the case has correctly progressed to bailiffs. The Council gave Mr X several opportunities to pay £85 before it instructed bailiffs. This was not blackmail, as Mr X suggests, but the usual debt recovery process.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman