Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sending council tax recovery documents to the complainant’s previous address. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council sending council tax demands, a summons and recovery documents to his old address. He says it had his phone and email details and that it sent bailiffs to his father’s address which caused upset.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he left his previous address without knowing that he would owe outstanding council tax for a shared responsibility. He says the Council sent the demands, summons and recovery documents to his old address, even though it had his email and telephone details on its records. As a result, he was unaware of the court action taken and the summons, liability order and bailiffs’ costs which he had incurred.
6. The Council says Mr X informed it he had left the property but did not provide a forwarding address. The recovery procedure is largely automated due to the high number of unpaid council tax arrears and the onus is on the resident to provide an alternative address. The Council as billing authority is required to issue demands to the last known address of the council tax payer and this is what the Council did in this case.
7. The bailiffs used data tracking to identify an address for Mr X which had financial connections. This was Mr X’s father’s address and the Council has apologised for the unannounced visit by agents which caused some upset. However, it has reminded Mr X that the debt remains recoverable and the liability order remains in force.
8. The Council was required to issue the demands and notices to the address to which the debt referred because Mr X had not provided an alternative. The documents were deemed as served under the Interpretation Act 1978 because they were posted to the billing address and so the summons and liability order were valid.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sending council tax recovery documents to the complainant’s previous address. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman