Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council enforcing a liability order for a council tax bill from more than 15 years ago. There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice in the Council seeking payment of a debt under a liability order the complainant knew of at the time and which she was responsible for paying, so the matter does not warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms M says the Council is seeking payment under a liability order for a council tax bill from more than 15 years ago.
2. Ms M says she no longer has any records about it, and it has been stressful having to deal with the enforcement agents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council obtained liability orders against Ms M for about £700 in unpaid council tax from 2005 and 2006. There is no time limit after which a liability order expires, unlike a debt which is not the subject of a court order.
9. Ms M says she no longer has records from the relevant period, but there is no evidence to suggest she was not aware of the debt and the liability order when it was made. If Ms M thinks otherwise it would be open to her to apply to court for the order to be set aside.
10. It was Ms M’s responsibility to ensure she paid the debt as ordered by the court, not necessarily the Council’s responsibility to Ms M to enforce payment. We could not therefore say the Council’s delay has caused Ms M injustice because she was always liable to pay the debt in any event.
11. Ms M says she should not be expected to pay because she now has a young son and her income has been restricted for the last two years during the Covid-19 pandemic. This was not, however, the case before 2020 and Ms M could have paid the debt well before.
12. The Council has invited Ms M to make an arrangement for payment with its enforcement agents, so there is no basis for us to say its actions are flawed or unfair to Ms M. Nor are there reasons for us to ask the Council to excuse Ms M from paying the council tax she should always have done.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint because there is not enough evidence the Council’s actions are faulty or have caused Ms M significant avoidable injustice, so an investigation is not warranted.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman