Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax recovery. This is because not enough injustice to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council and its enforcement agent did not reply to an email he sent in September 2024 requesting an affordable council tax payment plan. He says the Council then unfairly took recovery action by passing the account to its enforcement agent and later making deductions from his benefits. Mr X says the Council’s recovery action affected his health and wellbeing.

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 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 it had received his September 2024 email which had a letter addressed to its enforcement agent attached. Mr X offered to discuss a payment plan. He asked the agent to pass the account back to the Council.
6. The Council said
• It accepted it should have replied to Mr X, if only to say it would accept the case if its agent considered it should return it. It apologised for this.
• It was the agent’s responsibility to consider Mr X’s household’s vulnerability and decide if it should return the case to the Council.
• had not passed the account to its agent without considering Mr X’s letter. Mr X’s account was already with the agent before his letter.
• It was not inappropriate for the Council to use an attachment of benefit given the age of the debt and that it had tried other recovery methods.
• As it accepted it should have replied to Mr X’s email, it had decided to cancel the attachment of benefits. It asked Mr X to contact it to discuss a payment arrangement. This should not be lower than the benefit attachment.
7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because while there is fault by the Council in not replying, any injustice as result of this is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. The agent decided it was not appropriate to return the account to the Council. It was open to Mr X to make an arrangement with the agent. The Council’s attachment of benefits would not have incurred fees, which would have been added if the enforcement agent took recovery action. The Council has since cancelled the attachment of benefits and invited Mr X to make an arrangement.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the injustice here is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman