Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. There is no significant injustice due to delay in explaining a £9 charge.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council did not notify her about an outstanding council tax charge of £22 from an old address she left in 2023. She had requested contact by email via paperless billing. However, the Council did not correct her address until enforcement agents were involved and fees of over £400 had been added. She also complains the Council failed to explain an added charge of £9 until after enforcement was already in progress.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Ms X complained to the Council about the issues in paragraph 1.
5. The Council replied that Ms X had not provided her forwarding address and so it sent bills and notices to her former address. It had sent an email in December 2023 confirming the £22 outstanding.
6. The Council also said
• it was required by law to send the summons to the last known address. It was therefore served correctly in line with legislation.
• It was required by law to send notices by post. There was no legal requirement to send emails.
7. The Council explained in its final response that the £9 charge was the cost of the liability order.
8. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigation. The Council explained Ms X did not advise it of her new address. It is required to send notices by post. It sent an email to Ms X before starting recovery action but she did not make payment.
9. There was a delay in the Council explaining the £9 charge. However, the injustice due to this is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. And the injustice due to not explaining a £9 charge is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman