Summary: A woman complained about the way the Council had handled various issues relating to council tax. But we will not start an investigation in her case. This is mainly because some key issues are for the courts or the Valuation Tribunal to decide and the Council has taken suitable steps to address other matters.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Ms X, complained about the way the Council had dealt with council tax (‘CT’) issues in her case this year. In particular Ms X complained that:

1. the liability order it obtained in April is invalid;

2. its poor communications before the liability order hearing meant that she

was denied a hearing in person;

3. its threat to refer her CT debt to enforcement agents to collect is

unreasonable given her and her husband's vulnerabilities;

4. it has failed to make reasonable adjustments she has asked for;

5. it has not responded properly to her queries about evidence its solicitor

gave at a court hearing last year regarding an alleged breach of data

protection rights; and

6. it has not considered her claim for compensation for the physical injury

and illness she has suffered because of its poor handling of her case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 an investigation if, for example, we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We may decide not to start an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. Also, 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, and sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. The law says we normally cannot investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. But we cannot investigate if someone has already appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. The Valuation Tribunal is a tribunal which deals with appeals against decisions about CT liability and banding.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information Ms X provided with her complaint and information supplied by the Council. I also took account of Ms X’s comments, and the extra documents she provided, in response to a draft version of this decision. In addition, I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

Complaint A

7. The underlying issue behind Ms X’s complaints against the Council is her claim that it is wrongly holding her and her husband (Mr Y) liable for CT on the property they occupy.
8. In particular, Ms X and Mr Y contend that their property should not be included in the Valuation List which allows councils to charge for CT. But decisions about inclusions on the Valuation List are made by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), not the Council, and we have no jurisdiction to consider complaints about the VOA. In any event, Ms X and Mr Y have a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about the VOA’s listing decision in their case.
9. The Valuation Tribunal also deals with appeals regarding councils’ decisions about who is liable to pay CT. I am not clear if Ms X & Mr Y have already made an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about this matter. But if not, I see no reason they should not be expected to do so. Anyway, we have no power to decide about someone’s liability for CT. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of Ms X’s complaint.
10. Ms X also complains that Council and the magistrates court did not follow due process in respect of a recent liability order issued against her and Mr Y for CT arrears. As a result she considers the order is invalid. Ms X has put forward several technical legal points to back her case. But we do not have a remit to decide points of law or rule on the legal validity of a liability order. Only the courts can do this. Therefore, I consider Ms X would need to go to court to challenge the liability order.

Complaint B

11. Ms X and Mr Y wanted to attend the liability order hearing in person to make their case. But they needed the court to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate them because of their disabilities and health issues. However, the necessary arrangements were not made in time so they could not attend. Ms X was also not satisfied that the court received and taken account of her written representations. Ms X is critical of the Council regarding these matters, in particular, on the basis it initially gave her wrong information about how to contact the court and provided the contact details too late.
12. The Council has accepted it could have better explained the procedures for asking for an in-person hearing to Ms X at an early stage and has apologised for this failing.
13. But I am not convinced there are enough grounds for us to pursue Ms X’s complaint any further or seek an extra remedy in this respect. Ultimately it was for the court and not the Council to decide on the location and date of the hearing. It was also the court’s decision about whether the hearing would be in person and any reasonable adjustments which were needed. In the circumstances it is reasonable to expect Ms X to have dealt directly with the court about these matters. They would then have been able to complain to HM Courts & Tribunals Service about any fault in the court process.

Complaint C

14. In response to our enquiries the Council confirmed that it has placed all CT recovery action in Ms X’s case on hold. Also, it said it will not refer the debt to enforcement agents to collect because of Ms X’s and Mr Y’s known vulnerabilities. The Council also said it reviews all cases manually before using enforcement agents and it has clear notes on Ms X’s account confirming this would not be a suitable recovery method in her case.

In the circumstances I consider the Council has now taken suitable action to address Ms X’s complaint and therefore there is no reason for us to investigate this matter.

Complaint D

15. Ms X has asked the Council for several reasonable adjustments relating to communications with her and Mr Y, because of their vulnerabilities. These include being allowed six weeks to respond to any communications.
16. In response to Ms X’s complaint about this matter the Council noted she had only recently asked for a six-week response time, but all her previous requests for adjustments had been actioned. The Council pointed out it was bound by statutory or policy timeframes regarding some communications about CT. However the Council also confirmed it had made a note on Ms X’s CT account so no action would be taken without a manager considering her request for a six-week response time. It also said it would accommodate this need wherever possible on a case-by case basis.
17. Ms X also complained about particular instances where the Council had not given enough time to respond to correspondence. The Council accepted a recent reminder notice it sent to Ms X about her CT arrears was delivered after the requested response date, and it apologised for this. But it also confirmed it had now delayed serving a summons for six weeks to allow Ms X more time to respond about this matter. The Council also pointed out that after receiving a complaint from Ms X it had postponed a previous liability order hearing by four weeks which allowed her enough time to respond to the summons in that case.
18. I consider the Council has generally taken suitable action to record and accommodate Ms X’s requests for reasonable adjustments this year, and has apologised where it has been at fault. In the circumstances I consider that any fault on its part in this respect has not caused Ms X an outstanding injustice to warrant further investigation.

Complaint E

19. Last year Ms X made a claim against the Council to the county court for an alleged breach of data protection legislation in carrying out its CT enquiries in her case. The court later dismissed the claim. But Ms X later complained to the Council that its solicitor had not revealed to the court some relevant information it held. Ms X then complained to us that the Council had not properly addressed her queries about this matter.
20. However I am not convinced we should pursue Ms X’s complaint. First, the law prevents us from investigating complaints about what happens in court proceedings. So we could not look at what took place in court in this case.
21. Second, if Ms X is claiming the court’s decision in her case is in question because of the Council’s misleading evidence, I suggest this issue could only be properly addressed through the courts.
22. Ms X said she cannot take further legal action for financial and health reasons. But even if it is unreasonable to expect her to continue with a legal process, I do not see that we can act as a substitute for the courts in this respect. As said previously, we have no remit to make legal rulings or question those made by the courts. So we would not be in a position to reach our own view about the validity of the Council’s evidence or about whether the court could have reached a different decision. Therefore I do not see we would be likely to uncover any evidence of use to Ms X or could achieve any other worthwhile outcome by investigating this matter.

Complaint F

23. In response to our enquiries, the Council indicated that its liability to compensate Ms X was limited to the financial remedy it agreed to pay following our investigation of a previous complaint she made.
24. But I am not convinced we should start an investigation into Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to address her claim for further compensation.
25. In particular, I understand Ms X’s compensation claim is about personal injury and harm she says she has suffered because of the Council’s actions in her case. But we have no power to make a ruling about this issue. Claims about personal injury are matters properly for the courts to decide. Therefore we could not provide the outcome Ms X is seeking in this regard.

Back to top

Final decision

26. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the way the Council has dealt with various issues relating to council tax in her case. Some of Ms X’s issues are for the courts or the Valuation Tribunal to decide, and the Council has provided suitable responses or taken satisfactory action to address other matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman