Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears and an attachment of earnings order. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because we cannot investigate any issue that forms part of court proceedings. In addition, the complainant can complain to the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council did not follow the correct processes in relation to a liability order and an attachment of earnings order (AEO). He says the Council’s response to his Subject Access Request (SAR) was incomplete. Mr X wants a refund, apology, review of procedures and 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))
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council issued a summons for non-payment of council tax. Mr X says he did not receive the summons so could not raise a defence. I have seen the summons and the Council used the correct address. The court issued a liability order. The Council told Mr X that if he did not make a payment plan the Council could use an AEO to take money from his wages. Mr X made a payment plan but immediately defaulted so the Council sent an AEO to his employer.
7. Mr X complained he had not received any of the notices and says the AEO is invalid because the Council had not provided a certified copy of the liability order. In response, the Council said it had sent all the required notices and Mr X could have used the on-line portal or registered for e-billing. It said it had sent a copy of the payment plan by email which explained the consequences of not paying. The Council explained how the arrears arose and said the AEO would remain. But, as it identified some discrepancies with the AEO and Mr X’s declared income, it said it would review the case if Mr X provided payslips and bank statements.
8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X did not pay his council tax which meant the Council could ask for a liability order and issue an AEO. It sent the summons to the correct address and, even though Mr X says he was not sent a notice about the AEO, the Council had explained an AEO could follow from non-payment of the plan. Mr X did not make any payments so the law allowed the Council to ask for deductions from his wages.
9. Mr X says the liability order is invalid. The law says we cannot consider any issue that forms part of court legal proceedings. This means I cannot comment on the liability order. If Mr X thinks it is invalid he could raise it with the court.
10. Mr X says the Council’s response to his SAR was incomplete. I will not investigate this point because he can complain to the Information Commissioner. It is reasonable to expect him to do this because the Information Commissioner is the correct organisation to consider complaints about SARs.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, we cannot consider anything that has been considered in court, and because Mr X could contact the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman