Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s Council Tax account. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation and the Council has already partially upheld the complaint, accepting fault in its call handling. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:

• referred his Council Tax account to enforcement agents before the payment deadline;
• sent misleading letters causing him to miss payments;
• failed to apply a Single Person Discount promptly; and,
• failed to meet its duty of care by communicating poorly and escalating enforcement action, without considering his mental health and vulnerabilities, which led to added costs and significant distress.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council issued Mr X’s initial Council Tax bill for 2024/2025 on 19 April 2024 and sent a revised bill on 30 April 2024 with monthly instalments from June 2024 to March 2025.
7. Mr X missed the June payment, so the Council sent a reminder. When Mr X did not respond, the Council issued a court summons on 25 July 2024 and added £60 in costs.
8. The court granted a liability order on 2 September 2024, which added a further £50 in costs. Mr X agreed to a payment plan.
9. Mr X made a payment in December 2024, but it did not meet the agreed terms. The Council cancelled the payment plan and notified Mr X by letter on 2 January 2025.
10. On 14 January 2025, Mr X informed the Council he was the sole occupier. The Council reset the payment plan and set a payment of £609.70 due on 31 January 2025, pending the outcome of Mr X’s application for a Single Person Discount.
11. Mr X applied for the discount on 27 January 2025. The Council applied the discount from the 22 August 2024, reducing the balance owed to £394.42 to be paid in two instalments of £197.42 in February and £197.00 in March 2025.
12. Mr X missed the March payment. The Council cancelled the payment plan again and notified Mr X it had referred the outstanding debt to enforcement agents in April 2025 after receiving no contact or payment.
13. Mr X complained the Council’s letter in March made him believe the matter was already subject to court proceedings. Mr X says he felt there was no point in making the March payment because of this.
14. The Council explained the court had already granted a liability order in September 2024, so its letter in March 2025 was correct that matter was subject to court proceedings.
15. In his complaint Mr X said he suffered from mental health issues. The Council added a vulnerable indicator to his account and notified the enforcement agents.
16. The Council placed enforcement action on hold until 1 June 2025 but maintained the £75 enforcement fee remained payable, as it had escalated the debt correctly.
17. In August 2025, Mr X asked to escalate his complaint to stage two of the Council’s process. The Council declined to escalate as this request fell outside its published 10 working day timeframe. That same month, the enforcement agents returned Mr X’s account to the Council’s recovery team.
18. Mr X also complained about the Council’s call handling. The Council upheld this part of the complaint, reminded staff of customer rights, and confirmed that all other actions followed policy and procedure.
19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his Council Tax account. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. The Council had already partially upheld Mr X’s complaint about call handling, and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
20. Any dispute Mr X has about his liability for Council Tax is not a matter we can consider. It would be reasonable for Mr X to raise these concerns with either the court or the Valuation Tribunal.

Final Decision

21. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his Council Tax account. There is not enough evidence of procedural fault to justify an investigation. The Council had already apologised for its poor call handling and further investigation would achieve anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman