Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Liability Order because the matter has been remedied and there is insufficient remaining injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council unreasonably obtained a Liability Order against her which has caused her stress.

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:

• 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says that the Council wrongly obtained a Liability Order against her for unpaid Council tax. The Council says that they have waived all costs in relation to the Liability Order and no further action will be taken. They add however, that the Liability Order would not have been sought had new information about her tenant been received sooner.
6. I am satisfied that the waiving of costs is a satisfactory remedy to the complaint. Whilst the Liability Order cannot be cancelled, it has no effect upon Ms X’s credit rating. The Liability Order is not a county court judgement and merely allows a Council to take further enforcement action, which it has confirmed it will not take. The remaining injustice would not therefore warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman