Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his council tax account, including the information it gave about payments, its response to his enquiries, recovery action and complaint handling. W found the Council was at fault in its record keeping, communication, explanation of the online account issue, complaint follow-up and the incorrect advice given in its Stage 1 response. This caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble. The Council agreed to our recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council gave him incorrect advice about how to register his attendance for a council tax court hearing and has provided unclear or inconsistent information about his council tax liability, including missing payments on his online account. He says he cannot reliably access the Council’s online system and that when he can log in, no payments for 2024/25 appear. He also says the Council did not respond to multiple enquiry forms, emails and telephone calls, and that it referred his account to enforcement agents while issues about payments and liability remained unresolved. Mr X further complains the Council delayed responding to his complaint and said it had no record of his attempts to contact it, even after he provided evidence. He says the Council should improve its customer service, respond to enquiries, ensure his account displays accurate payment information, and provide him with an export of his council tax data, which he has requested several times.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Mr X says the amount the Council says he owes is wrong. I have not investigated whether Mr X is liable for council tax or the exact amount he is legally required to pay. These are matters Mr X can challenge through the statutory council tax appeal process, and the Ombudsman cannot normally investigate where someone has, or had, a right of appeal. I have considered whether the Council properly administered the account, recorded and responded to Mr X’s enquiries, allocated payments it received, and gave clear information about the balance and recovery action.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments submitted before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Council tax recovery and liability orders

9. If council tax is unpaid, councils may take recovery action. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 set out the process for applying to the Magistrates’ Court for a liability order. The court must be satisfied the sum has become payable and has not been paid before making a liability order.
10. The Ombudsman cannot overturn a liability order or decide the Magistrates’ Court should not have made one. But we can consider whether the Council acted properly in the administrative steps surrounding recovery action, such as whether it issued clear information, recorded and responded to contact, and took account of relevant information before escalating recovery.

Good administrative practice

11. Councils should keep accurate records, give clear and consistent information, respond to enquiries within a reasonable time, and correct errors promptly. Where a council says it has no record of contact, it should have taken reasonable steps to check relevant systems before reaching that view.

Back to top

What happened

12. I have included a summary of some of the key events in this complaint. This is not intended to be a comprehensive account of everything that happened.
13. The Council issued Mr X’s 2024/25 council tax bill in March 2024. It later issued recovery notices and, in July 2024, issued a summons for unpaid council tax plus costs.
14. In July 2024, Mr X completed an online form to set up a payment arrangement by direct debit. The arrangement was for monthly payments from August 2024 to March 2025. The Council’s records show payments were made in August, September and October 2024.
15. Mr X contacted the Council using its online enquiry form in September and October 2024. The Council later said these enquiries had been indexed to an incorrect property reference.
16. In November 2024, the Council received notification that the direct debit had been cancelled. It then moved Mr X’s outstanding 2023/24 and 2024/25 council tax balances to letter before action stage. The Council responded to Mr X’s October 2024 enquiry in December 2024 and then referred the outstanding balances to enforcement agents.
17. Mr X sent a further online enquiry in January 2025. The Council later said this was also indexed to an incorrect property reference. It responded in February 2025.
18. Mr X complained to the Council in February 2025. He said he had tried to contact the Council about the court hearing and disputed the recovery action. The Council responded at Stage 1 in March 2025. It said it could not trace written correspondence from Mr X, apologised for telephone wait times, and said Mr X would have needed to arrange attendance at court directly with the court.
19. Mr X challenged the response. He said the court had told him he needed to register his request through the Council. He also said he could not clearly see the charges and that payments were missing from his online council tax account.
20. The Council sent its Stage 2 response in May 2025. It said it had confirmed Mr X had made two payments of £400 in January and February 2025. It accepted the Stage 1 response was wrong to say Mr X needed to contact the court directly. It said the summonses had correctly advised Mr X to contact the Council before the hearing if he wanted to make an arrangement or raise a dispute.
21. The Council also said Mr X could send evidence to the service if he considered his payments were not late. It said it appreciated he had experienced difficulties contacting the Council Tax team and invited him to provide evidence of emails or automated responses so it could look into this further.
22. Mr X replied the same day and provided evidence of contact with the Council. He continued to ask for an update, a breakdown of the amount owed, and information about what was happening with the enforcement agent account.
23. In July 2025, the Council sent Mr X a further letter. It said the August, September and October 2024 direct debit payments had been made, but the November 2024 payment was returned unpaid because the direct debit had been cancelled. It said it then cancelled the payment arrangement, issued letters before action, and passed the outstanding balance to enforcement agents because no response was received.
24. The Council enclosed a statement of account. This showed payments of £213.34 in August, September and October 2024, and payments of £400 in January and February 2025.
25. In August 2025, Mr X contacted the Council again to say he had not received a response after providing evidence of earlier contact. The Council apologised that he had not been receiving responses and said it had asked a manager to respond urgently.

Ombudsman Enquiries

26. As part of my investigation, I made enquiries to the Council. Of note, the Council said:
• it had found three online enquiries and responses which had been indexed against an incorrect reference. It said this had not previously been apparent and that the documents were being moved to the correct reference.
• after the letter before action notification, the accounts were automatically passed to enforcement agents because no offer of repayment had been received.
• it does not keep a formal log of when its online council tax service is unavailable. It said the system may be unavailable because of maintenance, upgrades or technical issues.

Back to top

Analysis

The amount Mr X owes

27. Mr X says the amount the Council says he owes is wrong. I have not investigated whether Mr X is liable for council tax or the exact amount he is legally required to pay.
28. These are matters Mr X can challenge through the statutory council tax appeal process. I have considered whether the Council properly administered the account, recorded payments, responded to enquiries and gave clear information about the balance.

The Council’s handling of payments and account information

29. Mr X says the Council’s online account did not show his 2024/25 payments. He says this meant he could not understand how the Council had calculated the balance it said he owed.
30. The Council’s statement of account shows it received and recorded payments of £213.34 in August, September and October 2024, and payments of £400 in January and February 2025. The Council also confirmed in its Stage 2 response that it had received the January and February 2025 payments. I therefore cannot say the Council failed to allocate those payments to Mr X’s council tax account.
31. However, that does not fully answer Mr X’s complaint. His concern was not only that the Council had failed to record the payments internally. He also said the online account available to him did not show the payments, and this affected his ability to understand the balance and respond to recovery action.
32. The Council has not provided a clear explanation of what Mr X would have been able to see through the online system, why the payments did not appear to him, or what checks it carried out in response to his concern. It also said it does not keep a formal log of when the online council tax system is unavailable. That means the Council has not shown it properly considered this part of Mr X’s complaint.
33. That was fault. It caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and frustration, because he was trying to understand and resolve a disputed balance while recovery action was ongoing.

Contact, enquiries and recovery action

34. Mr X says he repeatedly tried to contact the Council about his account, but did not receive clear or timely responses. He says the Council then told him it had no record of his contact attempts, even after he had tried to raise concerns about the balance and recovery action.
35. The Council’s records now show Mr X did contact it using its online enquiry form in September 2024, October 2024 and January 2025. The Council later found these enquiries had been indexed against the wrong reference. That explains why the Council had difficulty finding them, but it does not excuse the failure. The Council should have systems which allow it to properly record, retrieve and respond to residents’ enquiries.
36. The poor record keeping was fault. It meant the Council did not have a complete picture of Mr X’s contact when it responded to him. It also meant Mr X was wrongly left with the impression the Council had no record of contact he had made.
37. There was also delay. The Council did not respond to Mr X’s October 2024 enquiry until December 2024. This was important because recovery action was moving forward during the same period. By the time the Council responded, the direct debit arrangement had failed and the account had moved to the letter before action stage.
38. I cannot say the Council was wrong to continue with recovery action altogether. The evidence shows the November 2024 direct debit payment was returned unpaid, the payment arrangement was cancelled, and council tax remained outstanding. The Council later considered the account and maintained its view that the liability and recovery action were correct.
39. However, that is not the end of the matter. Mr X was trying to understand and challenge the account while recovery action was progressing. The Council’s failure to correctly record and respond to his enquiries meant it did not deal with those concerns as clearly or promptly as it should have done. This made it harder for Mr X to understand the balance, know what action he needed to take, and engage with the recovery process.
40. I have considered whether this fault caused the referral to enforcement agents or the enforcement fees. On balance, I do not consider the evidence supports that conclusion. The records show recovery action was prompted by the failed direct debit and outstanding balance. I cannot say that, had the Council responded better to Mr X’s enquiries, it would have stopped recovery action or avoided enforcement. The injustice is therefore not the enforcement action itself, but the avoidable uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble caused by the Council’s poor communication and record keeping.

Complaint handling and advice about the court hearing

41. Mr X says the Council gave him incorrect information about how he could register his wish to attend or dispute the court hearing. He says this added to the confusion because he had already tried to contact the Council and the court about the hearing process.
42. The Council’s Stage 1 response said Mr X would have needed to arrange attendance at court directly with the court. The Council later accepted that was wrong. It said the summonses had correctly told Mr X he needed to contact the Council before the hearing if he wanted to make an arrangement or raise a dispute.
43. That was fault. Mr X was asking the Council to explain a recovery process which had already caused him concern. It was important the Council gave clear and accurate information. Instead, the Stage 1 response gave advice which was inconsistent with the summonses and with the Council’s later position. This caused avoidable confusion and frustration.
44. I have considered whether this fault affected the outcome of the recovery process. On balance, I do not consider it did. The incorrect advice was given after the relevant court and recovery action had already taken place. The summonses themselves also gave the correct information about contacting the Council before the hearing. I therefore cannot say the incorrect Stage 1 advice caused the summons costs, the liability order, or the referral to enforcement agents.
45. However, the Council’s complaint handling problem did not end with the Stage 1 response. In its Stage 2 response, the Council invited Mr X to provide evidence of earlier contact so it could look into why his communications had not been received. Mr X then provided further information and continued to chase for a response. The Council later accepted he had not been receiving responses and apologised.
46. That was fault. Once the Council asked Mr X for evidence, it should have ensured that evidence was reviewed and that he received a clear response. Instead, Mr X was left chasing the Council about the same issue he had complained about: a lack of response. This caused further avoidable frustration, uncertainty, and time and trouble.
47. The Council’s formal complaint responses were not significantly delayed. However, the quality of the complaint handling and follow-up was poor. That is the injustice I have taken into account.

Conclusion

48. The Council was at fault in its record keeping, handling of enquiries, explanation of the online account issue, complaint follow-up and the incorrect advice given in the Stage 1 response. These faults caused Mr X avoidable frustration, uncertainty, and time and trouble.
49. I do not consider there is enough evidence to say the Council should remove the summons costs or enforcement agent fees. Nor can I decide the amount of council tax Mr X legally owes. The remedy should therefore focus on the administrative injustice caused by the Council’s faults.
50. I have not recommended a wider service improvement. The evidence suggests the faults in this case arose from the handling of Mr X’s individual account and enquiries, particularly the incorrect indexing of his online forms and the failure to follow up properly. I have not seen evidence this was caused by a wider systemic issue affecting other council tax accounts.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. I have not found that the Council’s faults caused the enforcement action or affected the amount Mr X owes. However, they did cause avoidable uncertainty, frustration, and time and trouble. To remedy that injustice, the Council will take the following actions:
1. Provide a written apology to Mr X for its poor communication and record keeping, including the incorrect indexing of his enquiries and delays in responding to his contact. The apology should also acknowledge the incorrect advice given in the Stage 1 response, the lack of proper follow-up after Mr X provided evidence of earlier contact, and the failure to clearly explain the online account issue.
2. Pay Mr X £250 to recognise the avoidable uncertainty, frustration, and time and trouble caused by the Council’s poor communication, record keeping and complaint handling.
3. provide Mr X with a clear written breakdown of his council tax account, including the liability by year, summons costs, payments received and how they were allocated, and the current balance. The breakdown should also include any enforcement agent fees known to the Council, or explain that Mr X must request those directly from the enforcement agent.
4. Explain to Mr X whether the payments recorded on its council tax system should also have been visible him through his online account. If the Council cannot establish why the payments were not visible, it should clearly explain this to Mr X.
52. The Council will complete actions a to d within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision and provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has done so.

Back to top

Decision

53. We found the Council was at fault. The faults caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble. The Council accepted our recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman