Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the enforcement charges added to Mr X’s council tax bill. This is because investigation is not warranted by the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the added enforcement costs to his council tax bill.
2. Mr X would like the additional charges taken off as he says they arose due to communication failures by the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

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 Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In November 2024 Mr X let the Council know he had left his address and gave his email address and telephone number, but no forwarding address.
8. The Council sent three emails requesting payment in December 2024, January 20205 and June 2025, but Mr X says he did not receive any of them.
9. The Council text Mr X in January 2025 chasing payment and Mr X called and said he would pay the bill in February.
10. The Council sent an amended bill and reminder letter to his old address. In March 2025 a court summons was issued for payment.
11. Mr X made a complaint in June saying he was willing to pay the outstanding charges but not the enforcement costs. The Council’s stage one response was sent to his old address, which is fault. The Council apologised for this in its stage two response.
12. Mr X had not provided the Council a forwarding address and had not paid his outstanding bill.
13. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council issuing the summons was commencement of court action so we cannot investigate events from the Council issuing the summons to the court issuing the liability order. The Council was right to send the documents by post, so we cannot find fault that it was sent to Mr X’s last known address. There is no requirement for the Council to contact Mr X by other means.
14. We will not be likely to hold the Council responsible for the injustice caused to Mr X for the events before the summons and after the liability order, and it would be a disproportionate use of public money for us to investigate.
15. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
16. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because investigation is not warranted by the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman