Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax. Mr X could reasonably go, or have gone, to the Valuation Tribunal on some points. We cannot investigate court action the Council took. Some points are late without good reason to investigate them now. There is not enough evidence of fault on other points. Mr X could reasonably take court action on some points. We cannot achieve the decisions on council tax liability or the compensation Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his council tax account.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) The Valuation Tribunal (VT) deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
5. 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)
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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

The Council pursuing Mr X for £60.41

9. In April 2024 the Council said Mr X owed £60.41 council tax from the previous council tax year. It said this was due to a change in Mr X’s entitlement to council tax support (CTS). Mr X argues the Council is wrong to demand this.
10. Mr X has the right to appeal to the VT against the Council’s decision. Therefore the restriction in paragraph 4 applies to this point. Appealing is free and relatively straightforward. The sum demanded is smaller than many sums taxpayers appeal about, but that in itself does not make it unreasonable to expect Mr X to appeal. The VT has the expertise to decide the matter and can overturn the Council’s decision if it sees fit. Mr X could reasonably use his appeal right, so we shall not investigate this part of the complaint.
11. Mr X is unhappy the Council issued a court summons for this alleged debt and is also unhappy at what the Council reportedly told him the court would or would not consider if Mr X attended court. The restriction in paragraph 3 prevents us considering everything relating to the commencement and conduct of court action. That includes the decision to issue a summons, what the Council told Mr X about the court action, and the Council’s later decision to withdraw the summons.
12. The Council still wants Mr X to pay the £60.41. It said Mr X should pay the sum even if he is waiting for the VT to decide an appeal. That is in line with the law.
13. Mr X complains the Council did not reply to his emails about this. It would be a disproportionate use of resources to investigate the Council’s communications when we are not investigating the substantive matter.

The Council’s actions regarding council tax when Mr X was a student

14. Mr X says in 2020 the Council took over three months to grant him a student discount. Mr X knew about that then, so the restriction in paragraph 6 applies. Mr X could reasonably have come to us much sooner about this. I do not see good enough reason to investigate this now.
15. Mr X says the Council ended his student discount from September 2021 whereas he remained a student until November 2021. Mr X had the right to appeal to the VT about this point. He could reasonably have used that right as the process is straightforward and the VT could decide whether Mr X was liable for council tax for the two disputed months. Mr X also knew about this point well over 12 months before complaining to us in October 2024. The restriction in paragraph 6 also applies here. Mr X could reasonably have complained to us about this much sooner. For these reasons I shall not investigate whether the Council was wrong about the discount period.
16. Mr X says he recently sent the Council evidence about this matter, but the Council has not replied due to a backlog and instead deducted the amount demanded (£805.67) by attachment of earnings even after he won his appeals.
17. I have not seen evidence of Mr X winning an appeal to either the Council or the VT on this point. The matter that was resolved in Mr X’s favour after he sought to appeal was different. Mr X told the Council he wanted to appeal a decision on a later CTS application, which he wanted backdated from December 2022 to August 2022. In April 2023 the Council agreed to backdate that. This was a different matter to the £805.67 the Council sought from 2021/22. So I see no fault in the Council continuing to pursue the £805.67 separately after it revised the other matter in Mr X’s favour.

The Council taking deductions from Mr X’s salary

18. In 2024 the Council took from Mr X’s salary the £805.67 it said he owed from 2021/22. Mr X argues that was unlawful and invalid because he says there is no valid court order allowing the Council to do this. The Council says it got a liability order from a court in 2022 for this sum. The Council need not present a copy of an individual court order. Indeed, there might not be such a document. Courts often make liability orders in respect of whole lists of people. The Council’s actions here are not out of line with what often happens after a court order. I see no reason to doubt the Council took court action in the normal way when Mr X did not pay what it believed he owed in 2021/22. That is a standard process. So I do not see enough evidence of fault to justify starting an investigation.
19. It is for the courts, not the Ombudsman, to decide if actions are lawful. If Mr X believes the Council is wrongly claiming to have the court’s authority to recover the amount, he can reasonably apply to the court about this.
20. Mr X complains the Council continued deducting from his salary after he asked it to investigate the alleged debt. I see no fault in this, in itself. The Council was already satisfied Mr X owed the money. Mr X says the Council said if it were to decide he did not owe, it would only refund part of the money after paying the enforcement agent’s fees. The Council’s response to Mr X’s formal complaint that I saw did not state that. If the Council were to take such a step, it would be a new matter that Mr X should take through the Council’s complaint procedure before bringing it to us.

Results Mr X wants from his complaint

21. Mr X wants the Council to stop pursuing him for money he believes he does not owe. We cannot achieve that because, as explained above, it is not for us to decide how much council tax Mr X owes.
22. Mr X also wants £50,000 compensation. It is not our role to award compensation. If Mr X believes the Council’s actions have caused him damages warranting such a large award, he could reasonably take court action. There might be a cost to court action, but that is not in itself automatically a reason to consider court action unreasonable. Assessing liability, damages and compensation is properly for the courts, not the Ombudsman.
23. We cannot achieve some of the main results Mr X wants from his complaint. That is another reason we shall not investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

24. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. Mr X could reasonably use, or have used, his right to appeal to the VT on some points. We cannot investigate court action the Council took. Some parts of the complaint are late without good reason to investigate them now. There is not enough evidence of fault on other points. Mr X could reasonably take court action on some points. We cannot achieve the decisions on council tax liability or the compensation Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman