Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions regarding Mrs X’s council tax account. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council unfairly pursued council tax arrears due to a council tax support overpayment. She also says it failed to advise her it had withdrawn a summons and she attended court unnecessarily causing distress and costs.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or

(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. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. In 2024 the Council removed a single person discount it had applied to Mrs X’s account following information it had received about her adult children.
5. Mrs X said the Council requested information she could not provide about her children’s circumstances. She said she felt unfairly targeted.
6. The Council said she had a duty to advise it when changes occurred. It could review the decision if she provided information now. She could also appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. If she did not make payment by a certain date, it would issue a summons. It also said she could attend court for the liability order hearing. But withholding payment during an appeal or dispute was not permitted.
7. Mrs X asked the Council to withdraw the summons as she paid the majority of the council tax arrears before the court hearing. The Council wrote to Mrs X the same day confirming it had withdrawn the summons. It sent its letter by post.
8. Five days later Mrs X had not heard from the Council and so attended court. It advised her the summons was withdrawn. Mrs X complained she was caused stress and had financial losses because the Council did not advise her. She said the Council could have emailed or called her. She asked for compensation.
9. The Council did not uphold Mrs X’s complaint because it said it could reasonably expect the letter to be delivered the day before the liability order hearing. It did not agree to compensate Mrs X, but said it would revise its process to require officers to call or email to avoid unnecessary attendance at court.
10. The Council has explained the reasons why it requires evidence from Mrs X to revise its single person discount decision. While Mrs X did not receive the Council’s letter about withdrawing the summons in time, an investigation is not justified because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman