Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s enforcement agent rejected his proposal to adjust his payment plan to repay a council tax debt owed to the Council. This is because we are not likely to find fault. In addition, there is no worthwhile outcome as the Council has now agreed to Mr X’s proposal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s enforcement agent rejected his proposal to adjust his payment plan to repay a council tax debt owed to the Council. He says the enforcement agent failed to properly consider his financial situation and failed to communicate his offer to the Council.

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
• 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. The Council instructs enforcement agents to collect council tac debt owed to it. Mr X is paying £150 per month to an enforcement agent to repay his debt. Mr X contacted the enforcement agent to amend his payment plan when he became aware the Council had passed another debt to the enforcement agent.
6. Mr X complains the enforcement agent rejected his offer without first passing it to the Council to consider and says the agent failed to consider his financial circumstances. The enforcement agent said it never got to the point where it could consider Mr X’s financial circumstance because Mr X kept interrupting its agent and controlled the direction of the conversation.
7. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the law does not give Mr X any right to any arrangement to pay, other than the full sum due. This means, it is entirely up to the discretion of the enforcement agent or council to agree to a payment plan.
8. It does appear the enforcement agent did not have the opportunity to consider Mr X’s financial situation. However, this was due to the way the conversation between Mr X and the agent unfolded.
9. The enforcement agent has explained that once a case is passed to them, it is for them to manage the case, including whether to accept a proposed payment plan or not. The enforcement agent confirmed it was not its process to refer to the Council for advice or approval on actions to take on a case. Therefore, we are not likely to find fault with the decision not to inform the Council of Mr X’s offer.
10. In any case, the Council confirmed Mr X had contacted it to discuss his offer. The Council said it had agreed with Mr X that he could continue to pay £150 per month until both liability orders were cleared in full. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as there is no worthwhile outcome as the Council has now agreed to Mr X’s proposal.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are not likely to find fault. In addition, there is no worthwhile outcome as the Council has now agreed to Mr X’s proposal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman