Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council wrongly told the complainant he could not set up a payment plan for council tax arrears and delayed replying to an email. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council refused to set up a payment plan for council tax arrears and did not tell him it had arranged an Attachment Earnings Order (AEO). He also says the Council delayed replying to an email for two weeks.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and email exchanges. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X has council tax arrears for 2021/22, 22022/23 and for the current year. The Council obtained a liability order in January 2022 (for 2021/22) and in May 2023 (for 2022/23). In October 2022 the Council agreed a payment plan for 2021/22 to avoid using an AEO. The plan required Mr X to pay £150 a month until April 2023. The Council sent a letter confirming the plan. The last payment the Council received under the plan was in January.
5. Mr X contacted the Council in February to say he was behind with the payments but would like the plan to continue. The Council replied the same day and said it would review the plan when Mr X brought the payments up to date. Mr X did not make further payments, or reply, so the Council cancelled the plan. The Council told Mr X on 6 May it had cancelled the plan, issued an AEO and explained why. The Council told Mr X he could set up a plan for the arrears for 2022/23 and for the current year.
6. On 15 May Mr X sent an email saying he wanted a payment plan and he asked the Council to say what he needed to pay and when. Mr X chased for a response on 1 June.
7. The Council apologised for delay in replying to the email and said it had responded promptly to all other emails. It explained why it cancelled the plan and said it had told him there would be AEO instead. It offered a payment plan from September 2023 to cover the 2022/23 arrears and the current council tax. It said it was willing to delay payments for the current year, until September, because of the AEO. The Council asked Mr X to agree to the plan of £150 from September. It said that if he did not agree it would continue with recovery action. Mr X did not accept the plan. The Council said it would resume recovery action.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council agreed a payment plan to avoid an AEO. Mr X did not maintain the plan and did not bring it up to date in February. The Council had already implied that breaking the plan would lead to an AEO and this was confirmed in May. There was a short delay in replying to an email but the time taken to reply was not excessive and does not amount to fault.
9. The Council has not refused to set up a payment plan. It cancelled the plan for 2021/22 because Mr X did not maintain it but offered a plan for the arrears not subject to the AEO; it also delayed payment of the council tax for the current year. I appreciate Mr X may prefer a payment plan rather than an AEO but once a council has a liability order it can choose what method to use to recover the arrears.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman