Summary: We will not investigate how the Council handled Mr X’s complaints about council tax. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. While there was delay in responding, this did not cause significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his complaints about his council tax accounts. He says the Council did not respond fully and significantly delayed its final response. He says this led to frustration, anxiety and increased costs.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended).
4. 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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained in April 2025 about the Council seeking recovery of council tax for an address he left in 2020. The liability was £60 but the Council had added £390 in agent’s fees and costs. He asked the Council to provide information about the fees and hold recovery meanwhile.
7. The Council explained the fees in its stage two response in August 2025. Mr X had queried the liability in 2020. It had asked him to provide information, but he did not reply. It did not agree it should hold recovery, but said it would consider further evidence if Mr X provided it.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how it replied to his complaint about liability for 2020. This is because while there was delay by the Council in explaining the current outstanding amount, it did not increase the costs during this time. This did not cause injustice significant enough to justify our involvement.
9. Mr X says the 2020 liability is wrong and the Council delayed valuing the property.
10. We will not investigate this complaint because it is late as Mr X knew about the council tax in 2020. There are no good reasons for the delay in complaining. We cannot investigate the valuation or banding of the property as this is the Valuation Office Agency’s role and it is not the Council’s responsibility.
11. Mr X also complained about the Council’s response to his complaint about his current liability for council tax. He had asked the Council to consider his offer to pay in instalments. He says the Council did not respond clearly and delayed replying. It sent him a summons.
12. The Council replied in August 2025 that Mr X’s email in February 2025 was not clearly an offer to pay. The Council had replied in March 2025 and confirmed the bill was his ongoing liability. It had also confirmed this in its complaint response in April and had provided a link to an online form to make an arrangement. Mr X had offered to pay a certain monthly amount. However, the Council requested a higher amount so the arrears were paid within the current year. It asked Mr X to let it know if he agreed.
13. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its handling of Mr X’s complaint. The Council replied promptly in March 2025 to Mr X’s earlier email. Mr X could not reopen the encrypted email but this was not due to a fault by the Council. The Council responded in April 2025 to Mr X’s stage one complaint. The Council delayed replying to Mr X’s stage two complaint. But this did not cause significant injustice to Mr X that justifies our involvement. The Council did not accept Mr X’s offer to pay, and it invited him to reply if he did not agree to its proposal. Councils may hold recovery when they are responding to a complaint, but they are not required to do so.
14. Mr X complains about the Council’s actions when it issued the summons. However, the summons and liability order hearing are court proceedings and we cannot investigate court action as set out in paragraph 4.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. There were delays in complaint responses, but the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. We cannot investigate the summons and liability order court proceedings.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman