Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax summons and liability order. This is because we cannot investigate court proceedings, or the Valuation Tribunal’s decision. There is not enough injustice to justify our involvement .

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of Ms Y that the Council failed to properly notify her about its reconsideration of its decision to reduce her council tax support. The Valuation Tribunal later dismissed her appeal the Council’s decision. Mr X says the Council admits administrative faults on its part, but it continued to take enforcement action by issuing a summons, obtaining a liability order, and adding costs. This has caused distress and financial hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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).
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), 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 alleged fault has not caused significant 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. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
7. The Council apologised in March 2025 that it did not advise Ms Y it had reviewed and upheld its decision in September 2024. However, it said it had not put an ongoing hold on council tax recovery. It said it had notified Ms X it was continuing recovery because it sent a reminder in August 2024, a final notice in January 2025 and a summons in February. It also explained the court could not accept disputes about the level of council tax support awarded as a valid defence and this would not prevent the court granting a liability order.
8. In September 2025 the Valuation Tribunal dismissed Ms X’s appeal. While the Council said the Tribunal noted some procedural concerns, it did not find that the liability or balance due should change. The Council considered the costs incurred due to recovery action were payable.
9. We cannot investigate the issue of the summons and the liability order hearings a these are court proceedings as I explain in paragraph 2.
10. While it was fault that the Council did not notify Ms Y it had reviewed its decision in September 2024 and upheld it, this did not cause significant injustice to Ms Y. The Council notified Ms Y it was continuing council tax recovery, so it was apparent there was no hold on her account. The Council explained in March 2025 it had reviewed its decision and apologised it did not advise her earlier. Ms X was able to pursue her appeal to the Tribunal.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot investigate court proceedings or the matters subject to the appeal. There is not enough injustice to Ms X due to the Council’s delay in confirming its review decision to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman