Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to mail him council tax bills, and the Council incorrectly telling him there was a liability order against him. There is not enough evidence of significant unremedied personal injustice to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council: did not post him council tax payment reminders for several years; sent a document it wrongly claimed was a court summons; and wrongly told him a court had issued a liability order against him. He says this means he now has a large council tax bill and has suffered distress. He wants an apology and for the Council to clear his arrears.

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 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X has not paid Council Tax since 2021. The council has accepted it did not take recovery action until late 2024. Had the Council acted sooner, Mr X would not have received a demand for such a large amount. However, Mr X would reasonably have known he would owe council tax and could reasonably have made enquiries sooner or kept money aside for an eventual bill. The Council has offered Mr X the opportunity to pay in instalments. I consider this a suitable remedy. There is no remaining injustice to Mr X significant enough to warrant us investigating this point.
7. In seeking to recover the council tax, the Council sought a liability order against Mr X. Mr X says the Council sent a document it had produced itself, wrongly claiming this was a court summons. The Council says it followed the correct procedure for summonses. The restriction in paragraph 2 prevents us considering the conduct of court action, from the Council issuing the summons, or alleged summons, until the court finished dealing with the matter. So we cannot investigate whether the Council correctly summonsed Mr X.
8. In March 2025, the Council told Mr X there was a liability order against him. The Council accepts this was untrue. It had sought an order, but the court had not made one. The Council said it still believed a liability order would be justified and it would seek one. It is for the courts to decide whether to make an order against Mr X.
9. I appreciate Mr X had to spend time contacting the Council and court about the alleged order. However, in all the circumstances, especially the Council’s position that it would seek a court order again, that is not significant enough injustice for us to investigate.
10. The Council has apologised to Mr X for difficulties he had in getting hold of it to discuss his complaint. We would be unlikely to seek more than that.
11. Mr X wants the Council to cancel his debt. That would be disproportionate in the circumstances, so we cannot achieve it.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is not significant enough unremedied personal injustice, and it would be disproportionate for us to seek cancellation of Mr X’s arrears. The law prevents us investigating the point about the summons.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman