Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has pursued him for non-payment of council tax without him having seen the bills or notices before it issued a court summons as he was unaware he had email billing. He also complained the summons amount was for a different amount on the billing and the Council has failed to make reasonable adjustments to account for his poor mental health.
2. Mr Y says his mental health has declined because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y disputes receiving the bills and notices, saying he was unaware he was now receiving bills by email. He says only became aware that he had not paid council tax when a court summons was issued in February 2025. He says the amount in the summons, £219.98, did not match any prior bills he had seen, and he did not receive an explanation until he complained. Mr Y disputes his liability for the court costs and the costs of enforcement.
6. The court made the Liability Order. As part of the Liability Order, the court costs will have been included as part of the debt owed. As the court made the order including these costs as well as the original debt, we cannot say that there was fault in the inclusion of these costs by the Council. Further, once a debt is taken to this stage, bailiffs or enforcement agents are entitled to charge a fee for their actions. As the matter has reached the enforcement stage, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation in the charging of enforcement fees where the Liability Order has not been paid. Consequently, we will not investigate.
7. Mr Y has also complained that the Liability Order amount did not match the amounts in the bills he had previously seen. This would suggest that even if he had not read the emails, Mr Y had been sent the bills by email, which the Council says he requested when he moved into his existing property according to its records. As the bills were sent, and according to Mr Y he has been able to read them, even if this was only after the Liability Order was made, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s issuing of the bills to Mr Y’s email address to suggest that he was unfairly pursued for the debt owed or the costs associated. It is also unlikely we would find fault in the Council not checking that Mr Y had read the emails before pursuing the debt, as where it has been sent correctly, which as Mr Y has been able to read the bills once he opened the emails, they are deemed to have been issued. There is therefore not enough evidence of fault in the issuing of the bills to Mr Y’s email address to justify investigation into the complaint Mr Y has made about being pursued despite him not having been aware of the bills.
8. As part of its complaint handling, the Council has been able to provide Mr Y with a breakdown of the amount in the summons and in its previous billing, explaining that the amount changed from the bills as Mr Y’s application for Council Tax Reduction was approved, thereby reducing the amount owed. It also explained the addition of costs for the Liability Order which increased the amount listed on the summons. It explained that this meant that while the previous bill Mr Y says had been for £478.50 was therefore reduced initially to £124.98 with costs of £95 then being added to total £219.98. As the Council has been able to explain why the amounts differed and changed, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating the changing amounts from the bill to the summons. We will not investigate this.
9. Mr Y has also complained that the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments. Mr Y did make the Council aware that he has a mental health condition. However, from the complaint correspondence Mr Y has provided to us, the Council has explained to him that without further information about what reasonable adjustments Mr Y would help Mr Y to be able to access the Council’s service and pay his council tax, it is unable to provide the reasonable adjustments.
10. In the Council’s complaint correspondence, it has offered to discuss this with Mr Y by telephone and asked him to provide it with more information so it can consider what adjustments it may make.
11. While the duty to make reasonable adjustments is anticipatory, it is not a requirement that the Council automatically makes an adjustment when requested. The Council is entitled to consider whether it is reasonable for an adjustment to be made, and consequently, needs to know what type of adjustment Mr Y is seeking. In this case, the Council has said it cannot make an adjustment as it does not know what adjustment Mr Y is seeking and only knows that he has a mental health condition. As Mr Y has not provided information to allow the Council to understand what he may need to access its service, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman