Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax and complaint handling. This is because there is no significant injustice outstanding that warrants our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council sent a summons for council tax arrears while he was complaining about how it had handled billing from 2024. He says the Council failed to respond to his complaint and then started court action.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X complained the Council had not sent details or a breakdown of his council tax. It started his liability a month too early. He paid what he believed was correct. But the Council sent him a reminder. He had not received any notifications via the online billing system, but had found out by chance when he logged in.
5. The Council replied in July 2025 that it:
• Agreed it had started his liability early in error. It apologised for this and its delay from September to November 2024 in correcting it.
• Had posted two bills to Mr X. It noted he received its bill in September 2024 and called the Council. He had also set up his online account in September. The Council sent email alerts when bills were added online.
• Sent a reminder by post as Mr X had not paid in line with the instalments.
• Noted Mr X had seen the new 2025/6 bill online including the arrears of £770.
• Did not agree it should compensate Mr X as there was no financial loss.
6. Mr X complained further in July 2025 he did not receive email alerts. The delay in correcting liability was excessive. He said the Council threatened recovery action and verbally demanded £500. He had no breakdown of the arrears. He asked for an apology, compensation and for the Council not to progress recovery. He explained this caused him significant stress.
7. In August 2025 the Council sent Mr X a summons for the 2025/26 council tax year.
8. The Council replied after six weeks to Mr X’s complaint. This was not in line with its complaint procedure for stage two complaints which is a response within four weeks. The Council considered its actions were correct apart from its initial error in the liability start date. It had sent a reminder in April 2025 for arrears for 2024/25. It did not consider compensation was required because there was no financial loss. However, it recognised that Mr X had paid every month and so it withdrew the summons and sent a new bill over a longer period of six months.
9. I consider the injustice caused by the liability start error and delay in correcting it is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.
10. There is not enough evidence of fault from November 2024 causing significant injustice following the Council’s correction. Councils are not required according to legislation and guidance to pause recovery while a complaint is in progress, although they may do so if it is appropriate. The Council’s summons for council tax arrears for 2025/26 does not appear incorrect and as it has in any case withdrawn the summons, any further investigation by the Ombudsman would not likely change the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no significant injustice outstanding to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman