Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the process the Council used for council tax arrears and problems the complainant had getting through by phone. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council only issued one council tax reminder. He says he would have paid the council tax on time if he had been able to get through on the phone.

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. (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. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X is a landlord. The complaint relates to the rental property. In November his tenants told the Council they would be leaving in November. The Council made Mr X liable for the council tax from December and sent the bill to his home address. The bill said the first payment was due by 1 January.
5. Mr X says he was expecting a council tax exemption due to the property being empty. He says he made repeated attempts to call the Council to discuss but could not get through due to long waits in the phone queue.
6. The Council issued a reminder in January because Mr X had not paid the January instalment. Mr X says he did not get the reminder. The Council then served a summons because Mr X had not paid the council tax in response to the summons. The summons included court costs.
7. Mr X spoke to the Council three times during one day in February. He challenged the costs although he subsequently paid the council tax and costs.
8. In response to his complaint the Council apologised because, at times, it can be hard to get through by phone. It explained people can use on-line services as an alternative. The Council gave a breakdown of Mr X’s calls which included the wait time and call duration. The Council explained why it is only required to send one reminder and said it had sent all the documents to his home address.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council issued a bill which stated what Mr X needed to pay and when. I appreciate Mr X wanted to query the bill but he could have paid, as required, and then waited for an adjusted bill if an exemption was due. Alternatively, Mr X could have used the on-line services; the message that plays while people are in the phone queue suggests this as an option. Further, if the Council sends a reminder, and the person does not pay, then the next step is to issue a summons. I do not know why Mr X did not get the reminder but the Council is not responsible for problems with the post.
10. The Council has apologised because it can take time for people to get through by phone. It analysed its records, using the phone number provided by Mr X, and found that while the records show a couple of long waits (for example one of 26 minutes) there were also times when his call was answered very quickly and he sometimes called before the lines were opened. The Council said it monitors call volumes and takes steps to reduce the queues.
11. I appreciate Mr X had some difficulty getting through by phone, but, overall, there is not enough evidence of fault to require an investigation. Mr X could have paid as billed, avoided the costs, and sorted any exemption later. Further, the Council was only required to send one reminder and has taken steps to manage the phone queues.

Back to top

Final decision

12. 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