Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled the complainant’s council tax. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and the Council has provided a fair remedy for some faults that did occur.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says his council tax account would not have escalated to bailiffs if the Council had handled it correctly. He accepts he owes some council tax but not any bailiff fees.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) &24A(7), 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 information about on-line council tax accounts. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X often works away from home. He has previously had council tax arrears linked to not being at home. At the start of 2023 Mr X signed up for e-billing. He downloaded the council tax bill for 2023/24; the bill did not say he had arranged to pay by direct debit. Through the on-line account Mr X could see his bills, balances and reminders.
5. Mr X did not pay the instalment due in April. Mr X thought he had set up a direct debit. The Council issued a reminder and sent it by post; Mr X could also view it on-line.
6. Mr X did not bring the account up to date so the Council sent a summons to his home address. The law requires councils to send summonses by post; Mr X had not given the Council an alternative address. The summons included a payment plan which Mr X did not pay. The Council sent Mr X a text asking him to pay the arrears. Mr X received the text but did not think it applied because he was paying by direct debit.
7. The court issued a liability order because Mr X had arrears and was not keeping to the payment plan. The Council then instructed bailiffs. The bailiffs charged a compliance fee of £75 and an enforcement fee of £235.
8. Mr X complained because he did not think the Council had handled the account correctly, especially as he works away from home. He thinks the Council should have contacted him about the arrears and said there were communication problems.
9. The Council explained it had followed the correct process but said some of its communications with Mr X could have been better. It explained Mr X had not provided an alternative address and had never paid by direct debit. It said it does not have the resources to contact people individually about arrears but, as an extra service, it sends text messages. It agreed to waive the bailiff fee of £235 in recognition of some failures in communicating with Mr X. The current position is that once Mr X pays £131 (the remaining arrears and £75 fee) to the bailiffs the Council will pay the enforcement fee of £235. The account is on hold for 21 days to allow time for Mr X to pay.
10. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council issued all the documents it was required to send and sent a text message. Mr X has had difficulties in the past so could have used his on-line account to check his council tax situation, especially after receiving the text. Mr X had not provided an alternative address and the Council correctly explained it must send the summons by post. It is correct that once the court has issued a liability order councils can involve bailiffs and the tax payer will incur bailiff fees.
11. There were some communication difficulties for which the Council has apologised. In recognition of this it will pay the enforcement fee provided Mr X pays the outstanding £131. This remedies any injustice caused by the communication errors and no further action by us is needed.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the Council has already provided a satisfactory response for some errors that did occur.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman