Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to collect council tax arrears through an attachment of earnings order. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council refused his payment offer for council tax arrears. He says the Council’s use of an attachment of earnings order (AEO) is causing hardship. Mr X wants the Council to set up an affordable payment plan.

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))
3. We consider complaints about matters that have completed the Council’s complaints process. The Council issued its final response in February 2024. I cannot consider events that occurred after the stage 2 reply.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and the Council’s debt management policy. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In February 2024 the Council issued two AEOs to Mr X’s employer. At the time Mr X had council tax arrears of nearly £12,000. The last payment Mr X made was in 2019.
6. Mr X complained about the AEOs. He asked the Council to withdraw them and accept £75 a month. Mr X submitted a financial statement. The Council considered but did not agree his request. The Council noted the substantial arrears. It said it had set up payment plans which Mr X had broken, and bailiffs had been unable to collect the debt. The Council said it had previously signposted Mr X to sources of financial support. It also said that some of the expenditure on the financial statement seemed high and it noted Mr X was paying about £140 a month towards non-priority debts.
7. The Council said the amount of the deduction for AEOs is controlled by regulations set by government. The Council denied it had breached its debt management policy as alleged by Mr X. The Council rejected Mr X’s offer but recalled one of the AOEs for six months to give Mr X time to get advice.
8. In his complaint to us, Mr X says the Council rejected his offer of £175 month. I have no information about this because the complaint response referred to his offer of £75. Mr X should complete the Council’s complaints process if he wants to complain about the Council rejecting an offer of £175.
9. I will not investigate the events until February because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The law allows councils to collect arrears via an AEO. The Council has no control over the amount that will be deducted as the amount is set by government. The Council rejected Mr X’s offer due to the level of arrears, the absence of payments since 2019, and the unsuccessful attempts to collect the arrears by other means. In addition, an employer is required to pay an AEO which means the Council is guaranteed payment while Mr X remains employed.
10. There is nothing requiring an investigation. The law allows the use of AEOs and the Council explained why it would not recall them. It did, however, suspend one AEO to give Mr X time to get advice. I have considered the debt management policy and I have not seen anything to indicate the Council breached that policy.

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