Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council enforced recovery of a council tax debt. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The Council is taking council tax recovery action against Ms X. Ms X complains the Council has failed to consider her financial hardship, there have been failings in how the enforcement action has been administered, and the Council has unlawfully shared her data with an enforcement agency. She also complains that the Council has not disclosed how it uses council tax.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X was in arrears with her council tax. The Council got a court liability order and began enforcement action for the recovery of Ms X’s council tax debt. Ms X complains there were procedural failings in how the summons for the liability order hearing was served. As explained in paragraph 3, we cannot investigate this element of the complaint.
7. We can investigate how the Council sought and administered recovery action. At each stage of the recovery process, the Council and enforcement agents issued Ms X with advanced notice, as needed by law. Ms X’s complaints to the Council and the Information Commissioner’s Office were not in themselves reasons the Council should automatically stop recovery action. We are unlikely to find fault with how the Council sought and administered enforcement action to recover the council tax debt.
8. Ms X says she verbally told the Council about her financial hardship, although the Council says it does not have record of this. Investigation by us is unlikely to reach a clear enough view on this point. However, the Council has presented Ms X with several opportunities to register for council tax reduction in its communications with her both before and after the liability order. Therefore, whether she told the Council on that one occasion does not warrant investigation. If Ms X does apply for council tax reduction and the Council refuses, she can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
9. The Council’s website provides an outline of how the Council uses and invests council tax. There is no fault by the Council here.
10. Ms X says she has complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about the use of her personal data, which is where we would normally expect someone to refer such complaints. That is the appropriate route for this point, so we will not investigate it.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X complaint. We are unlikely to find fault in how the Council has acted in recovering council tax. Ms X can apply for council tax support, and it is appropriate for the ICO to decide the point about the sharing of Ms X’s personal data.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman