Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his council tax repayment. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to recover his unpaid council tax. He said the Council failed to take his personal circumstances into account and was unwilling to offer flexible payment arrangements that better suited his financial situation.
2. He explained this caused him avoidable distress. Mr X wants the Council to adopt a more open and flexible approach when discussing repayment options and to consider his financial circumstances.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. There are laws and regulations that control how councils collect council tax payments and how they can make people pay council tax they owe. (Council Tax [Administration and Enforcement] Regulations 1992) The time limit for a council to enforce council tax debts is six years.

7. In October 2020, a cyberattack targeted the Council’s system. Three years later, after recovering its data, the Council contacted Mr X regarding payment of his 2020/2021 council tax bill. Mr X, now facing financial difficulties, stated he had attempted to pay multiple times immediately after the attack but later left the UK at the end of 2021. He was aware he still owed council tax. He said the Council should not pursue the debt after a three-year delay.
8. The Council acknowledged a delay in recovering the council tax. It said the cyberattack in October 2020 was a criminal act that severely impacted data recovery and the collection of outstanding payments. Residents were notified of this delay in November 2021.
9. Despite the delay, the Council remains entitled to recover the unpaid council tax, which allows six years from the due date to pursue the debt. As Mr X’s council tax bill was issued within this timeframe, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
10. Upon learning of his financial difficulties, the Council outlined available repayment options and agreed a payment plan. It also showed flexibility by agreeing to an extended repayment period. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman