Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems with Mr X’s council tax. We would be unlikely to recommend the Council do more than it has already done to put matters right.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not deal properly with his attempts to agree a repayment arrangement for a council tax debt. He says this caused him worry when he was already under pressure, it caused difficulty between Mr X and someone at an address where the Council wrongly sent letters for Mr X, and he spent time and trouble pursuing the matter.

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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. 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)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X owes council tax from several years ago. There were faults in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s attempts to set up an instalment arrangement to repay that debt. Overall, it took about a year from Mr X proposing paying £40 a month to the Council agreeing he could pay £30 a month. Within that time, the Council admits there were periods when it delayed replying to Mr X. The Council also wrote to Mr X at the wrong address, even after Mr X supplied his correct address. That caused further delays in Mr X receiving, and being able to reply to, the correspondence. The Council also accepts its demands that Mr X should pay particular monthly instalments (including suggestions of £100 and £60 a month) did not show enough leniency or take proper account of Mr X’s financial position and the increasing cost of living.
8. The Council has: apologised; reminded staff to consider the current economic climate when dealing with similar cases; acted to reduce delays dealing with council tax enquiries; agreed Mr X can repay the debt at £30 a month; removed £85 recovery costs from the debt; and offered to pay Mr X £100.
9. Mr X says if the Council had accepted his proposal to pay £40 a month a year ago, he would meanwhile have paid £480 off the debt. He wants the Council to reduce the debt by that amount. I do not consider that proportionate. Mr X has had the benefit of the £40 per month he did not pay the Council. There was nothing to prevent Mr X keeping aside that money (or any other sum) during the delay then using it to reduce the debt.
10. Overall, the Council has offered a financial remedy of £185 (£85 deducted from the debt and £100 the Council offered to pay Mr X). I consider that is broadly in line with what the Ombudsman would be likely to recommend for Mr X’s avoidable stress, time and trouble if we were to investigate this complaint. The Council’s apology, reminder to staff and efforts to reduce delays are also in line with what we might recommend. So, while I understand Mr X’s dissatisfaction, I do not consider investigation by the Ombudsman would be likely to lead to a significantly different result than the Council has already provided.
11. Mr X says the Council mistakenly sent him another person’s complaint acknowledgement. I do not consider that in itself disadvantaged Mr X significantly enough to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to pursuing this point. It would be for the Information Commissioner's Office to decide if the Council needs to do more about any possible data breach here.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because investigation is unlikely to achieve significantly more for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman