Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr X’s council tax arrears. Substantive parts of the complaint are about events that happened too long ago or decisions that were made in court. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to use its policy on unreasonably persistent and/or vexatious complainant’s behaviour.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has treated him unfairly for six years over a debt of less than £3,000. It unreasonably applied for bankruptcy and implemented its policy on unreasonably persistent and/or vexatious complainant’s behaviour. Mr X has spent significant time and finances due to the Council’s actions and he estimates he will lose a significant further sum. The events have led to him being homeless. He wants a change in the Council’s senior management and for the Council to be placed in special measures. He wants it to take steps to improve its service and agree to a financial settlement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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)
4. The courts have said we can decide not to investigate a complaint about any action by a council concerning a matter which is outside our jurisdiction. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2006] EHWCC 2847 (Admin))
5. 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

6. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. We usually require people to bring complaints to us within 12 months of events. Mr X complains about events that have taken place over six years. He could have brought his concerns to us sooner and we will not now consider his historical complaints.
10. Mr X’s complaint is also about the Council’s decision to apply for bankruptcy in 2021 due to his council tax arrears. Notwithstanding the fact this process began more than 12 months ago and much of the time period is now also too long ago, we cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. The courts have also said we can decide not to investigate peripheral matters where they relate to such court proceedings. In this case, we will not investigate Mr X’s allegations about staff conduct as they relate ultimately to his dissatisfaction with legal proceedings.
11. I have, however, separately considered the Council’s use of its policy on unreasonably persistent and/or vexatious complainant’s behaviour as it is sufficiently separable and in the public interest. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation. The Council provided warnings and signposted Mr X to its policy. In August 2022 it issued Mr X a letter notifying him it was implementing its policy and gave him the reasons for its decision. It made clear its expectations for Mr X’s communications with it going forward and provided information to him about arrangements for review. It has since issued a letter before action as it says Mr X’s behaviour has continued. It explained to Mr X it was considering taking steps to issue proceedings.
12. I have not considered the merits of the Council’s decision and I cannot make any decision about whether the Council was justified in using these procedures in the absence of fault in how it dealt with the matter. My decision should not therefore prejudice any court proceedings that the Council decides to instigate, and Mr X will have the opportunity to argue his case in court if he wishes to do so.
13. Mr X also raised several matters that we cannot deal with, such as allegations of criminal activity by Council officers and its response to Freedom of Information requests which would be better considered by the Information Commissioners office. We cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks as it is not for the Ombudsman to make recommendations that Council employees are dismissed and we do not have the power to place councils into special measures.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman