Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about Council Tax recovery and communication as it is unlikely we would find fault. We cannot investigate action within Court proceedings. And the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a data protection complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about how the Council has dealt with a Council Tax debt.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Miss X which included the Council’s reply to her.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council says Miss X owed Council Tax for 2015/16, 2016/17 and from 2020 onwards. By December 2024 it said this amounted to over £5700.
8. Miss X says she offered a payment plan in July 2024 which the Council rejected. She says the Council then later agreed a similar plan in January 2025. She says in the intervening period it chased her unnecessarily.
9. The Council says the monthly payments offered by Miss X in July 2024 would not have paid the debt off quick enough. It says following her providing further information in January 2025 it reviewed the case and agreed a payment plan which was over a longer period than it normally agrees. It says the first 36 months was at a higher rate than Miss X offered in July 2024.
10. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s approach. It is up to the Council’s discretion what sort of arrangement to accept. Typically, councils will look to have the debt cleared by the end of the financial year. And, if the debt is for a previous year, it will also want to see payments for the current year kept up.
11. The Council issued court proceedings to recover the tax owed. Miss X says communication about these proceedings was chaotic. She is unhappy about costs attached to her debt. We cannot investigate Council communications within Court proceedings or court costs imposed.
12. Miss X says the Council delayed twice in replying to her data protection subject access request.
13. Miss X has the right to request her records, known as a subject access request. If the Council refuses to do so, she can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Parliament set up the ICO to consider data protection disputes which includes failure to disclose records disputes. The ICO are better placed than us to consider if the Council has failed to comply with the law.
14. Miss X says that throughout the Council’s communication has been dismissive and blame shifting. She says this has caused her distress. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council communicating with Miss X to recover such a significant Council Tax debt.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the ICO is better placed and we are unlikely to find fault in the communication issues she alleges. We cannot investigate action within Court proceedings.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman