Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council handling of Mr X’s council tax. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation regarding the address the Council used. There is no significant injustice due to the delay in responding to Mr X that justifies our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council and its agent provided contradictory information about his forwarding address this led to missed correspondence and added costs. He had to pay more than the original balance for his property when it was not occupied by tenants.
2. The Council also delayed responding to his earlier complaint in January 2025.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
6. The Council replied it had issued a council tax bill and then after sending reminders, a summons for a period when Mr X’s property was unoccupied. It said it then referred the council tax to its enforcement agent. It confirmed it did not have Mr X’s forwarding address, and so it sent letters to the property address. However, the enforcement agent later traced Mr X to his address and then sent enforcement notices. The Council explained the liability period and the evidence Mr X could provide to revise this if he disagreed. The Council apologised for its delay in responding to his complaint in January 2025.
7. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation regarding the address it used.
8. While there was fault by the Council due to delay responding to Mr X’s complaint in January 2025, as it did not reply until April 2025, the injustice from this is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. The Council has apologised for its delay which is what we would expect it to do. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
9. Mr X complained the Council failed to respond to all his questions in its complaint responses. We will not investigate complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive issue, as in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council regarding the address it used to warrant investigation. There is not enough injustice from delays in responding to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman