Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with cheques for council tax. The Council has taken enough action to put right any injustice that might have resulted from fault by the Council. We cannot investigate the decision to summons Mrs X and it would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s handling of Mr X’s communications.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council stopped taking council tax payments by cheque.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
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 considered information provided by the Mr X and copy complaint correspondence the Council sent us.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr and Mrs X paid their council tax by sending a cheque to the Council’s offices each month. They did not want to use another payment method because they feared disclosure of their banking details if the Council’s computer systems were to be hacked.
7. The Council says it stopped accepting cheque payments sent to its offices in October 2020. This resulted from most of its staff working remotely due to COVID-19 restrictions. Although COVID-19 restrictions have changed since October 2020, the Council could still decide not to process cheques sent to its offices. It is for the Council to decide how to receive payments. So I do not criticise the Council on this point.
8. In January 2021 the Council advised Mrs X of alternative payment methods. It did not advise how to continue paying by cheque. Mr X kept sending monthly cheques to the Council’s office. The Council did not cash the cheques. The Council issued reminders and then a court summons for Mrs X in June 2021.
9. After Mr X wrote to the Council’s chief executive in July 2021, the Council told Mrs X in August 2021 that if she wanted to continue paying by cheque, that could be done by sending the cheque and relevant details to the Council’s bank or Mr and Mrs X’s bank, not to the Council’s offices. This was the first time Council had said cheque payments could continue. The Council cancelled the court summons.
10. After that, Mr X said he would continue sending cheques to the Council’s offices, as he believed staff could attend the office again. The Council has not processed those cheques and recently issued another court summons for the council tax.
11. Arguably the Council should have made clear sooner than August 2021 how Mr and Mrs X could continue paying by cheque. However, even after the Council clarified that, Mr X continued sending cheques to the Council, rather than to his bank or the Council’s bank as advised. So even had the Council clarified the point earlier, Mr X would not necessarily have followed its advice so the Council might still have issued the June 2021 summons. Therefore the Council’s withdrawal of the summons is enough remedy for this point.
12. I give some weight to the Council offering alternative payment methods. While Mr X might not like those methods, that was his choice rather than fault by the Council. Mr X says the Council only offered the options of credit card, debit card or direct debit. However, the Council also offered the option of standing order, which would give Mr X more control. Mr X could also have investigated with his bank how it might be possible to pay council tax in a way he felt comfortable with.
13. I appreciate the summons in June 2021 caused some concern and that Mr X found his dealings with the Council frustrating. However, those points do not amount to significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating the complaint.
14. I do not criticise the Council for any recovery action taken after August 2021, including the second summons. The Council had explained how to continue paying by cheque and the onus was on Mr X to act accordingly.
15. Mr X is dissatisfied the Council summonsed Mrs X rather than him. Deciding whom to name on a summons is part of the commencement of court action, so we cannot consider it, as paragraph 3 explained.
16. Mr X also says the Council did not deal properly with his correspondence, including his formal complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough unremedied injustice on the key point about payment by cheque. We cannot investigate the decision to summons Mrs X and it would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s handling of Mr X’s communications.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman