Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax reminder sent to Mr X in error. This is because the Council has already provided a satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council threatened recovery action for a £25 council tax reminder which was sent in error. He says an officer was rude and this caused him distress and inconvenience. He seeks compensation of £150.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In April 2025 the Council sent Mr X a council tax reminder for an outstanding payment of £25. Mr X complained that he was distressed and spent a sleepless weekend worrying about the bill and threat of recovery action. When he called the Council on the following Monday, officers were rude and unhelpful. They could not explain the reason for the bill and told him he should just pay it.
6. In its complaint responses the Council apologised that it had sent the bill in error. It had meant to pay compensation of £25. It said officers should have identified the reason for the bill. The Council said it would discuss the matter with officers and provide training. It said it had corrected the error. It said its officer had not intended to be rude and had apologised during the call. The Council agreed it had not progressed its complaint response as it should due to further queries from Mr X. It apologised for this and its delay. The Council offered a compensatory payment of £25 for the distress caused.
7. The Council has provided a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X. It has apologised, offered him £25 and has provided feedback and training to officers to prevent the error reoccurring.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has provided a suitable remedy for Mr X’s injustice. There is no significant remaining injustice to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman