Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s council tax payments. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a significantly different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her council tax payments. She says it gave her incorrect information during phone calls, failed to meet its deadline for a response and failed to see the discrimination and anxiety it caused her. She says an Attachment of Earnings Order (AEO) was wrongly issued to her employers and that she should receive compensation.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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 information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to her complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. There was fault by the Council in its handling of Ms X’s council tax payments. It acknowledged this and apologised and advised that feedback had been provided directly to the officers involved and their managers. However, it declined to pay her compensation for the stress she says it caused her and the negative impact on her health which delayed her return to work.
6. The Council said the request for the AEO was discharged and direct debit payments reinstated and while Ms X had been sent a notification letter about the Order, her employer never received the letter it had been sent because the letter had been returned to the Council as undelivered.
7. In response to Ms X’s request for compensation because of the impact the Council’s actions had had on her health and that she had been unable to return to work on the date she had planned to, the Council noted Ms X’s wellbeing had already been affected prior to her contact with it.
8. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and we will generally not investigate where an investigation is unlikely to usefully add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a significantly different outcome. An investigation by the Ombudsman could not conclude that but for the Council’s actions Ms X would have returned to work earlier than she did.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a significantly different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman