Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened before a council tax summons. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that following a change in his circumstances the Council unfairly issued a summons adding £59 costs. He says the Council did not advise him he was behind in his payments and he needed to set up a new direct debit.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, (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 to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
5. The Council replied that it advised Mr X in November 2024 a new direct debit would be required if it needed set up a new council tax account. The Council closed Mr X’s council tax account in January 2025 and set up a joint account. It transferred the direct debt to the new account. However, Mr X made a manual payment in January 2025.
6. The Council tried to collect payment by direct debit in February, but Mr X’s bank rejected this. The Council wrote to Mr X that his direct debit was cancelled, and he should contact his bank and the Council. It then sent a reminder in April 2025. While the Council received Mr X ‘s direct debit instruction in May 2025 it was not processed before a summons was sent seven days later.
7. The Council said if Mr X had not received its letters he should have recognised that non payment in April would have meant he needed to bring his account up to date. It did not agree to refund the summons costs because it considered it had acted in accordance with legislation and its procedures.
8. There Is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. The Council acted in line with legislation and there was no significant delay causing injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman