Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and it is not a good use of public money to investigate how the Council dealt with Ms Y’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complained the Council has wrongly pursued her for unpaid council tax when documentation was sent to a previous address. She is also unhappy with how it dealt with her complaint.
2. The unpaid council tax led to contact from bailiffs, which caused Ms Y distress and worry, and increased the charge by £433.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Ms Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms Y created an online account for her council tax on the Council’s website in February 2021. The Council issued a bill for unpaid council tax for the period August 2020 to March 2021 by post and the online account.
7. The Council then sent further billing documents to Ms Y by email for March 2021, which gave an increased amount for instalments to include payment for the amount owed previously. Ms Y paid three instalments in response in March and in June 2021.
8. A further bill was issued by the Council in March, with a reminder sent in July. Ms Y paid the next instalment and informed the Council she had left the property at the end of July. She did not provide a forwarding address.
9. However, this left an amount of council tax unpaid. The Council therefore issued a summons for non-payment of council tax for £324.97, incurring £113.50 in court costs. This was sent by post to the last known address and to the online account Ms Y had set up.
10. As there was no response, a Liability Order was made by the court for the unpaid amount and costs, amounting to £447.47. The Council passed the case to enforcement agents in December 2022, who were able to trace and contact Ms Y. She then paid the full debt and the bailiffs fees in March 2023.
11. Ms Y complained, but the Council did not find fault in its recovery action. Ms Y then approached us in April. She says the Council’s online system is lacking and has added to the miscommunication. She is seeking the reimbursement of the court and bailiff fees and compensation for the upset caused. She says these would not have been incurred if the council had contacted her at the correct address, as the bailiffs later did.

Analysis

12. The Council is allowed pursue a person for non-payment of council tax, including to serve a summons where payments of council tax have not been made in full. Ms Y had not provided an alternative address, so the Council issued the summons and further enforcement correspondence to the last known address and the online account.
13. As Ms Y had set the online account up, agreed to online billing and had access to this, use of the system by the Council was appropriate. If Ms Y did not wish to be contacted using this method for any reason, the onus would be on her to have told the Council this and provide it with an alternative address. As she did not do this, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigating.
14. The contact Ms Y did receive from bailiffs was after the bailiffs were able to trace her to her current address. Where a Liability Order has been made, the Council is able to use enforcement agents to trace and recovery debts. It is unlikely we would find fault with the Council’s use of bailiffs where it is unable to obtain payment otherwise. Therefore, we will not investigate.
15. It is not a good use of public money to investigate how a Council deal with a complaint where we are not investigating the substantive matter. Therefore, we will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and it is not a good use of public money to investigate how the Council dealt with Ms Y’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman