Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s council tax. At our invitation, the Council has agreed a suitable remedy for matters we can appropriately consider. It would therefore be disproportionate to investigate the complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s actions in connection with pursuing her for council tax from 2008.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council believed Miss X owed council tax from some of the 2008/2009 council tax year. It states it got liability orders around that time. The Council took no more action until 2023. Miss X learned the Council was seeking payment in January 2024. She contacted the Council then. Miss X also looked into implications for an Individual Voluntary Agreement (IVA) she already had about other debts. The Council did not respond substantively to Miss X until August 2024. Nor did it deal with the IVA matter on time, which meant the money it was seeking from Miss X became irrecoverable.
10. In July 2024 Miss X complained to us. In August 2024 the Council confirmed to Miss X that it knew it could not recover from her the money it had been seeking. The Council also apologised for some faults and offered Miss X £100.
11. If we investigated this complaint, it is likely we would find the Council at fault because:
1. The Council accepts it failed to act on the matter from 2009 to 2023.
2. It also accepts it failed to deal properly with Miss X’s contact with the Council in January 2024.
3. The Council did not reply substantively to Miss X’s concerns until August 2024. It seems only our intervention got the matter into the complaint procedure and obtained a substantive response.
4. Meanwhile, Miss X had received further contact from enforcement agents in June 2024 and had chased the matter with the Council.
12. I note the Council’s delay after January 2024 perhaps avoided the council tax debt being added to Miss X’s Individual Voluntary Agreement (IVA), which was an error in Miss X’s favour. Nevertheless, an investigation would be likely to find fault by the Council on the above points caused Miss X avoidable uncertainty and distress about an important matter, as well as time and trouble pursuing the complaint. The £100 the Council offered seems inadequate recognition of that injustice.
13. We therefore asked to the Council to consider remedying the injustice its actions caused by agreeing to pay Miss X £300 rather than £100 to resolve the complaint early. This is a symbolic payment to recognise Miss X had some uncertainty, distress and time and trouble. It is not compensation as the courts might award.
14. I note the Council has improved procedures about debt collection and has reminded staff of the importance of identifying complaints as early as possible.
15. Miss X wants us to investigate the Council’s handling of the whole matter. We need to act proportionately. However, it is not our role to police, regulate or oversee councils’ actions generally. We would only investigate if there were any outstanding points warranting the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating the complaint.
16. The restriction in paragraph 6 prevents us investigating the commencement or conduct of court action. That includes all actions from the Council issuing each summons (including any arguments about whether or where the Council sent summonses addressed to Miss X) until the court issued each liability order.
17. It is also unlikely we could reach a clearer view now on events dating back many years than the version of events the Council has already provided.
18. Miss X wants ‘compensation’ for what happened. It is not our role to assess damages or award compensation. That is for the courts, so the restriction in paragraph 7 applies. If Miss X wants compensation for the impact she says the matter had on her health, for the Council’s alleged data-handling faults or anything else, those are points the courts are better placed than the Ombudsman to decide. There might be a cost implication for court action, but that does not in itself automatically make it unreasonable to expect someone to go to court on matters the courts are best placed to decide. Miss X might be eligible for help with legal costs or could ask the court for her costs if her court action succeeds. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to take court action for such compensation.
19. Miss X says the Council did not properly handle her data and her request to see her data. She has contacted the Information Commissioner. It is more appropriate for us to leave the question of whether there was fault in data handling to the Information Commissioner, who has the relevant expertise and powers.
20. When Miss X first complained to us, the Council had not yet replied substantively to her and had not yet clarified it was no longer pursuing her for the money. It has now made that clear. It has also now agreed a suitable remedy for the points that are appropriate for the Ombudsman to consider. Investigation would be unlikely to achieve significantly more and, in all the circumstances, would be a disproportionate use of public resources.

Back to top

Agreed action

21. To its credit the Council agreed to resolve the complaint and will pay Miss X £300 within one month of today to put things right.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman