Summary: We will not investigate Dr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her council tax arrears. She says the Council breached national guidelines and protocols during its recovery action. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or worthwhile outcomes.

The complaint

1. Dr X complains about the Council’s handling of her council tax arrears. She says the Council breached national guidelines and protocol during its recovery action.

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 we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Dr X had council tax arrears. The Council obtained a liability order for the arrears in March 2023. The Council passed the liability order to an enforcement agent in July 2023.
6. Dr X said the Council failed to recognise her vulnerability from the outset and failed to inform the enforcement agents of her vulnerability. This was despite Dr X making the Council aware of her vulnerabilities in March and May 2023.
7. In August 2023, the Council confirmed it had reviewed Dr X’s case and decided that a visit to property should not take place due to her grounds of vulnerability.
8. In response to Dr X’s complaint, the Council accepted it failed to review her case prior to sending the liability order to the enforcement agent. It also accepted there had been delay in acknowledging Dr X’s vulnerability and that it failed to pass the information on to its enforcement agent. The Council confirmed to Dr X it had instructed the enforcement agents not to visit Dr X. However, despite this, Dr X subsequently received two further letters from the enforcement agents threatening to visit her property if payment was not made.
9. In its complaint response, the Council acknowledged fault with this and accepted the letters should not have been sent. The Council confirmed it had instructed the enforcement agent to return the liability order to the Council and that the service could have considered other options to recover the debt.
10. Dr X’s complaint to us was focused on outcomes as she wanted reassurance the Council’s faults would not be repeated. She wanted the Council to complete a review of its recovery process, to complete regular audits and quality checks to ensure staff are appropriately trained, and for the Council to implement a written protocol between its enforcement agents regarding how vulnerability debtors are dealt with.
11. I do not consider an investigation to be proportionate as it would not lead to any different findings or recommendations. The Council has appropriately apologised for the above faults and offered a financial remedy of £150 to recognise the distress caused. This remedy offer is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. The Council has also made some appropriate service improvements to address the fault and to prevent these from reoccurring.
12. Further, we could not achieve the outcomes Dr X is seeking. This is because it is not for the Ombudsman to tell the Council how it should run its service. For example, while Dr X wishes the Council to have a written protocol in place with its enforcement agents, this an operational decision for the Council to make. We could not make any recommendations around this, particularly as the national standard does not specify that agreed procedures/protocols must be in writing.
13. Finally, while I note Dr X wishes for the Council to implement auditing and quality checks, I am satisfied the complaint process is also available to any individual who feels there has been fault with the Council’s recovery process. Therefore, there is already an appropriate process in place for people to raise their grievances and concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Dr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or worthwhile outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman