Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears and bailiff fees. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says the Council gave him inaccurate information about a council tax summons leading to increased fees. Mr X wants the Council to refund the extra fees or apply a credit to his council tax.

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. If someone has council tax arrears a council can issue a final notice which requires payment of all the arrears in seven days. If the person does not pay all the arrears the council can serve a summons. If the full amount of the summons and costs is not paid, the court can issue a liability order. A council can then instruct bailiffs; bailiffs charge fees.
5. In June 2023 the Council sent Mr X a final notice for arrears of £1200. Mr X paid £150. This was not the full amount so the Council served a summons. Mr X says he called the Council in July and August and was told he had no arrears and could ignore the summons. The Council says that after the August call it checked the account and wrote to Mr X to say it had correctly issued the summons. The Council also wrote to Mr X in September and asked him to make a payment plan with the bailiffs.
6. Mr X says he was harassed by the bailiffs and had to pay £310 in fees. He says he only incurred the fees because the Council gave misleading advice. Mr X also says the Council did not reply to some emails.
7. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council said it had correctly served the summons because Mr X did not pay all the outstanding council tax as required by the final notice. It said there is no recording of the calls but he was given written information about what he needed to do. The Council said his account was checked after the August call and it then sent written confirmation of the summons. The Council apologised for not responding to some emails and, as a goodwill gesture, waived the court costs. The Council credited the sum to the account which reduced the arrears to £821. The Council said it would not remove the bailiff fees because they were correctly incurred.
8. I will not start an investigation because there in insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. There are no call recordings so, as we make evidence-based decisions, we could not say the Council mis-advised Mr X. However, the Council did, on several occasions, provide written information about the arrears, payment requirements and consequences of non-payment. On balance, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. This is because there is no evidence of mis-advice but the requirements were provided in written form.
9. Further, the Council removed the court costs and advised Mr X to make a payment plan with the bailiffs. If Mr X had made a payment plan when invited, it is probable the fees would be considerably less.
10. The Council accepts it may not have responded to every email from Mr X but as it did not notify him of the key issues, and it waived the court costs, this does not need an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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