Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says the Council ignored his attempts to resolve a council tax problem. He wants the Council to cancel the costs and recall the account from the bailiffs.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(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 and copies of emails from Mr X. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. In November 2023 Mr X’s bank told the Council it had cancelled Mr X’s direct debit for council tax. The Council wrote to Mr X on 4 December asking him to bring his account up to date as he had not paid the council tax for November. It issued an adjusted bill asking for payment by 1 January. By then Mr X was in arrears by two months. The Council issued a reminder on 8 January which required payment by 15 January.
5. Mr X says he sent an email on 12 January saying he was having problems with the direct debit and, having seen the reminder, he was keen to resolve the situation. The Council has no record it received this email. I have seen a copy of the email but I do not know if it was sent or if it was quarantined by the Council’s email system.
6. Mr X did not pay so the Council served a summons on 30 January and charged costs of £65. The court issued a liability order in March which said Mr X must pay the council tax and the costs.
7. Mr X sent emails in February chasing a response to his earlier emails. He complained in March and said the Council had failed to respond to his request for help in February; Mr X did not refer to his January email. In reply, the Council said it had issued the summons correctly because he had not paid the arrears. It asked him to pay the outstanding council tax and costs to avoid further recovery action.
8. The Council gave Mr X further chances to pay. The Council passed the case to bailiffs in July because Mr X still owed £65. Mr X now owes £65 in council tax and bailiff fees of £310.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice. The Council notified Mr X of the arrears in 2023 and he could have paid in 2023 and avoided all costs. The Council offers payment methods, other than direct debit, and Mr X could have paid in another way even if he thought the Council was not responding to his direct debit queries.
10. The Council has no record of receiving Mr X’s January email and it is unlikely we could find out what happened. However, even if the Council received it, it did not include any payment and, to avoid a summons and costs, Mr X needed to pay the arrears by 15 January. As there is no evidence Mr X complied with the reminder, there is no suggestion of fault in the Council’s decision to issue a summons and charge costs.
11. The court issued a liability order which required Mr X to pay the council tax and costs. Mr X has only paid part of this sum. The law allows councils to pass a debt to bailiffs if someone has not paid the full charge which is stated on the liability order. The Council gave Mr X chances to pay before it passed the case to bailiffs. I appreciate the debt has increased to £375 but the regulations allow bailiffs to charge fees and the amount reflects the regulations.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman