Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council's pursuit of historic council tax debt because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by us.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council unfairly pursued her for a council tax debt from over 12 years ago which she said she doesn’t owe. Ms X said the long period of time that has passed has placed her at a disadvantage. She said the Council’s actions have caused her stress.

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
• 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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Councils who want to recover unpaid council tax must ask the magistrate’s court for a liability order against people it thinks owe it the money.
6. Case law has established that once the court has granted a liability order, there is no time limit for a council to begin debt recovery action.
7. Ms X complained the Council contacted her in 2023 and 2024 about council tax debt it said she accrued between 2007 and 2011. She disputed her liability for the council tax and said the passage of time made it difficult for her to get evidence to prove she did not owe this money.
8. The Council responded and said it sent her a bill in 2012. It said it also tried to contact her through phone calls, text messages and emails between 2019 and 2023. It said it applied for payments to be made from her benefits in 2012 and 2016 to clear the debt. These deductions from Ms X’s benefits were taken between 2012 and 2013.
9. In 2023, the Council rang Ms X to set up payment plans. Ms X asked the Council to send her information through the post because she wanted proof of liability before disclosing her payment details. The Council agreed, but it did not send her any letters following its call with her.
10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council deciding to pursue the debt because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. The law says there is no time limit for councils to begin debt recovery action.
11. From the information I have seen, the Council tried to contact Ms X through different methods to inform her of the debt. It sent her a final bill in 2012 which stated the amount she owed. In the years since, it applied to have payments deducted from Ms X’s benefits. It appears the Council has taken reasonable steps to inform Ms X of the debt and has made attempts to recover the debt.
12. Nor will we investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council did not send her information by post after it agreed it would. The Council has accepted this was an error, has apologised and offered Ms X £100 to recognise her time and trouble. Further investigation into this issue by us, would likely not achieve anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and further investigation by us would likely not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman