Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s council tax account. It is unlikely we could conclude there was fault by the Council on some points. Matters related to the court action are outside our power. The Council has done enough to put matters right and we cannot achieve much of what Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not deal properly with his report that he had not received a council tax bill and the Council instead took recovery action, including issuing a court summons and getting a liability order. He says this caused him inconvenience, postage costs, and he fears having an adverse court record and damage to his credit rating.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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)
3. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Much of the complaint turns on whether the Council properly issued council tax bills and related documents. The Council says it posted those. Mr X says he did not receive them. It is unlikely any investigation by us would be able to reach a clear enough view, on balance, about whether there was fault by the Council here rather than, for example, a problem with the post.
8. Issuing a summons is the start of court action. So, as paragraph 2 explained, we cannot consider anything related to the issuing of the summons. The same restriction prevents us considering what happened during court action, including Mr X’s suggestion the Council misled the court.
9. It is unlikely that any investigation by us would recommend more. I appreciate the matter caused Mr X some concern and he went to time and trouble pursuing it. However, the Council states it withdrew the reminders, summons and liability order. I note Mr X had seemingly been unaware of the summons at the time and the Council took no further recovery action (such as sending bailiffs) after getting the liability order. In the circumstances, the Council’s actions seem sufficient. It is unlikely we would recommend more even if we were to investigate and find fault.
10. Mr X suggests the liability order damaged his credit rating. However, a liability order granted by a magistrates’ court has no effect on someone’s credit rating. It is not like a county court judgment.
11. Mr X wants disciplinary action against Council officers and believes some officers should be dismissed. The Ombudsman considers complaints against the Council as a corporate body, not against individuals. We would not recommend disciplinary action.
12. Mr X wants a ‘detailed written explanation’ of how the events he complains of occurred. In the circumstances it would be disproportionate to seek that.
13. For the reasons given above, it would be disproportionate for us to investigate whether there was any fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could find enough evidence of fault on some points, we cannot consider matters related to the court action, the Council has done enough in the circumstances to put matters right and we would not achieve much of what Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman