Summary: We cannot investigate how a council tax liability order was awarded because as this is a decision of the court, it is outside our legal remit. Mr X is not caused a significant injustice from any fault in the Council’s administration of his council tax account prior to the court action, and we will not therefore investigate.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council knowingly lied to the court when it obtained a council tax liability order against him as he says it knew it had never sent him a bill prior to this. Mr X complains a Council officer acted unprofessionally at court, and that the proceedings were not cancelled despite Mr X telling another Council officer he had not received any bills/warning letters. Mr X says this has caused him distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council sent council tax bills and letters to Mr X but incorrectly spelled his name, transposing two letters of his surname.
8. Mr X says he did not open any such mail he received as he assumed they were junk mail. Mr X says he put most back in the mail as return to sender.
9. Mr X says by accident, he did open a letter with the incorrect spelling, and it was then he says he discovered the Council was intending to take someone to court.
10. Mr X attended court and says that a Council officer refused to speak to him and despite him explaining to another officer he had not received any warning of the recovery action, a liability order was granted by the court. Mr X considers the Council knowingly lied to the court.
11. We cannot investigate the granting of the liability order as this was a decision of the court. Should Mr X wish to challenge the liability order, he would need to do so with the court. I recognise Mr X remains upset with how he says he was treated by a Council officer at court, but we will not investigate this as a separate matter when we cannot investigate the substantive matter, the granting of the liability order. This is because any injustice to Mr X arising from this interaction alone is not sufficient to warrant out further involvement.
12. I note what Mr X says about how he dealt with letters which used the incorrectly spelled name. However, the spelling error amounted to two letters of his surname being transposed. I consider therefore that it was reasonable to expect Mr X to have assumed the letters were for him and for him therefore to have dealt with them.
13. I asked the Council if any of its council tax letters to Mr X were returned to it as undelivered and it says they were not.
14. On balance, I consider that the injustice caused by any Council fault in this regard is reduced by Mr X’s own actions which could have mitigated the situation. Had Mr X dealt with the letters and contacted the Council, it is likely that recovery action would have been avoided. As such, I do not consider the injustice from any Council fault in this regard is at a level that would warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the granting of the liability order was a decision of the court and therefore not within our legal remit. There is insufficient injustice arising from the interaction at court or from the administration of the account prior to court action, to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman