Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an arrangement to pay council tax arrears. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council will not reinstate her £25 payment plan even though she explained the arrangement failed due to suspicious activity on her bank account. Ms X says the Council did not put a hold on recovery action as agreed. Ms X wants the Council to review its handling of her case and pay 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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and an update from the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Ms X had a payment plan with the Council to pay £25 a month for council tax arrears. The Council warned Ms X it would instruct bailiffs if she broke the agreement. The September payment failed. Ms X says her bank blocked some payments due to suspicious activity on her account. Ms X she was unaware of the problem until she was contacted by bailiffs in October. Ms X immediately contacted the bailiffs to resume payment but says the bailiffs refused to accept the previous arrangement.
5. In response to her complaint, the Council explained why it had instructed bailiffs and said the bailiffs were entitled to reassess the payment rate as the debt is now with them. The Council agreed the bailiffs should not have rejected the offer of £25 until they had reassessed Ms X’s circumstances.
6. The Council asked Ms X to provide a completed means form and proof of savings and income. It invited her to provide proof of vulnerability and asked her to supply evidence from her bank of the suspicious activity. The Council had put the account on hold but lifted it because Ms X did not provide the proof of income and savings. The Council re-instated the hold which is in place until the end of May.
7. The Council told me Ms X has not provided evidence of vulnerability or of the suspicious activity on her account. Ms X has made some payments to the Council, but the Council has asked to make an arrangement with the bailiffs.
8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Ms X did not maintain the payment plan so there is no suggestion of fault in the Council’s decision to involve bailiffs. At that stage the Council was not aware of any issue with Ms X’s bank but acted appropriately by subsequently asking her to provide evidence. If Ms X had provided this information, or evidence of her income, then the Council could have considered if payments of £25 should resume.
9. Once the case was with bailiffs they were entitled to reassess the account. The Council accepts the bailiffs should not have rejected the offer without more information about Ms X’s circumstances. But this does not need an investigation because the Council then asked for that information. It is reasonable for the Council to ask for proof of savings/income as, under the previous arrangement, it would have taken 11 years for Ms X to pay all the arrears; financial records would have allowed the bailiffs to work out a fair payment plan.
10. The Council did put the account on hold but lifted it because Ms X did not provide all the information it had asked for; this is not an indication of fault and the Council then reinstated the hold. This gives Ms X an opportunity to provide the information the Council asked for and work out a repayment plan with the bailiffs.

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