Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax recovery. The law prevents us considering some points. On other points, Mr X could reasonably use his right to go to court, or there is not enough evidence of fault, or the Information Commissioner is better placed than us. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s communications and complaint-handling in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters related to council tax he owed. He says this has caused him distress and inconvenience.

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.
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 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. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
6. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The restriction in paragraph 3 prevents us considering ‘the commencement or conduct’ of court action. So we cannot consider: whether the Council acted lawfully in issuing a summons at all or for the amount that it did (including whether it had sent the correct notices enabling it to summons Mr X); the Council applying for a liability order after Mr X paid a sum; whether the liability order was for the correct amount; and the summons costs and court costs.
9. If Mr X believes the Council was wrong to get a liability order in the way it did, and if he disputes the summons or court costs, he can ask the magistrates’ court to set aside the order. So the restriction in paragraph 4 also applies to those points. The court can change or revoke an order. That is the proper route in such cases.
10. The Council passed the debt to enforcement agents. Mr X argues it is not lawful to expect him to pay the agents (including the agents’ fees) without another court order. We treat the agents as acting for the Council, so we do not fault the Council for wanting Mr X to pay the agents. Questions of lawfulness are more properly for the courts than the Ombudsman, especially where legal points are disputed, as in this case. So we shall not investigate this point.
11. Mr X suggests the law and guidance on dealing with ‘vulnerable’ debtors could apply to him. There is no legal definition of ‘vulnerable’ here. This point was not in Mr X’s formal complaint to the Council. Anyway, I do not see Mr X gave the Council reason to believe he is vulnerable. Just being of pension age does not make Mr X vulnerable in this context, even if a different organization might have treated him as vulnerable for that reason. If Mr X believes he is vulnerable such that the Council should handle recovery action differently, he can give the Council details for it to consider.
12. Mr X alleges the agents harassed him by seeking payment although he was disputing the matter with the Council and complaining to us. Those points do not require suspension of recovery action. I do not see evidence of harassment here; rather, usual steps in recovery action involving enforcement agents.
13. Mr X says the Council did not give proper warning before adding a ‘penalty charge’ to his council tax account. The Council denies adding any such penalty. I see no evidence of fault by the Council here. The sums it demanded relate to the council tax plus recovery action costs. There is no evidence of any ‘penalty.’
14. Allegations of fraud and other crimes are for the police, not the Ombudsman.
15. Mr X also complains about the Council’s handling of his concerns about the points above, including communications with Council officers and elected members and the Council’s complaint-handling. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about communications and complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
16. It is more appropriate for the Information Commissioner than us to consider any data protection matters involving the Council or enforcement agents. This is particularly the case here, as we are not investigating other parts of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The law prevents us considering points relating to the court action. On other points, Mr X could reasonably use his right to go to court, or there is not enough evidence of fault. The Information Commissioner is better placed than us to consider any data concerns. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s communications and complaint-handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman