Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his mother’s, Ms Y’s, council tax account and its failure to offer an appropriate remedy when it upheld his complaint about such. The Council was at fault. It failed to reinstate the direct debit for the payment of Ms Y’s council tax. There were also other errors and inaccuracies by the Council. As a result, Ms Y received an avoidable court summons, and she suffered distress and worry. Mr X suffered frustration. The Council will make symbolic payments and send us evidence of service improvements it says it is making.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his mother’s, who I will refer to as Ms Y, council tax account. The Council has upheld Mr X’s complaint and accepted fault, but Mr X complains it has not offered an appropriate remedy to acknowledge the injustice caused to Ms Y by its failings.
2. Mr X says as a result of the Council’s actions, Ms Y has suffered distress, financial hardship and an impact to her physical and mental health. Mr X would like the Council to offer a financial remedy and make service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. The matters Mr X complains of includes the Council’s application for a liability order. We cannot investigate this due to the restriction outlined in paragraph 4. However, the Council accepts had it not been for its failure to reinstate Ms Y’s direct debit, it would not have issued a court summons to Ms Y. As such, I have considered the court action as an injustice from the Council’s fault in its handling of Ms Y’s council tax account.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the phone.
9. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and Council documentation, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council tax recovery

11. There are laws and regulations that control how councils collect council tax payments and how they can make people pay council tax they owe. (Council Tax [Administration and Enforcement] Regulations 1992)
12. Councils who want to recover unpaid council tax have to ask the magistrate’s court for a liability order against people it thinks owe it the money. Once a council has a liability order it can take action to recover the money and any court costs owed.

Council tax reduction/support

13. Council tax reduction (CTR, also known as council tax support, CTS) is a discount, not a benefit. It reduces the amount of council tax a person has to pay.

Back to top

What happened

14. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not include everything that has happened in this case.
15. At the end of August 2025, Ms Y wrote to the Council. She told it she had cancelled the direct debit set up to pay her council tax after an unanticipated amount was collected. She gave the Council her bank details and authorised it to reinstate the direct debit. Ms Y also sent the Council evidence it had requested regarding her CTS, and she informed it she had a lodger staying at her address.
16. In late September 2025, Ms Y received a court summons for non-payment of council tax. The Council told Ms Y around the same time it had suspended her CTS, pending a review of her circumstances.
17. Mr X emailed the Council in early October 2025. He asked it for assistance in applying for a disabled band reduction due to adaptations to Ms Y’s property, and a severely mentally impaired (SMI) exemption for Ms Y’s council tax due to her medical conditions and care needs.
18. Mr X and Ms Y spoke with the Council. The Council confirmed it received Ms Y’s letter she had sent it in August 2025. It told Ms Y it was applying for a SMI exemption and a disabled band reduction. Ms Y made a manual payment towards her council tax and agreed a new amount to be taken by direct debit each month, starting from November 2025.
19. In late October 2025, Ms Y sent the Council copies of her bank statements evidencing her income, as requested by the Council to support the ongoing CTS review. Shortly after, Mr X and Ms Y attended court and spoke to a Council representative. The Council representative told Ms Y the liability order application would be withdrawn without costs, given the Council’s failure to reinstate Ms Y’s direct debit to collect her council tax payments following her written request in August 2025.
20. At the end of October 2025, the Council wrote to Ms Y confirming it had withdrawn the liability order application and court costs. The Council also suggested Ms Y was no longer in receipt of employment and support allowance (ESA) and that her CTS was suspended again due to insufficient proof of income. It asked Ms Y for three months’ bank statements.
21. In early November 2025, Mr X complained to the Council about its handling of Ms Y’s council tax account. He complained the Council had sent Ms Y a court summons for non-payment of council tax and suspended her CTS due to non-payment of council tax, despite Ms Y writing to the Council asking it to reinstate her council tax direct debit. He also complained the Council had incorrectly suggested Ms Y was no longer in receipt of ESA.
22. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in mid-November 2025 and told him it upholds his complaint. The Council told Mr X it apologises for its errors in the handling of Ms Y’s council tax account and acknowledged this had an impact to Ms Y and caused her distress.
23. Mr X brought the complaint to us shortly after as he and Ms Y are not happy with the Council’s response. Mr X told us while he recognises the Council upholds his complaint; it has not offered an appropriate remedy to acknowledge the injustice caused to Ms Y.

Back to top

Analysis

24. The Council upholds Mr X’s complaint and has acknowledged it was at fault. It failed to reinstate the direct debit on Ms Y’s council tax account, following her request for the Council to action this, which triggered a court summons and suspension of Ms Y’s CTS. There were also inaccuracies in its correspondence to Ms Y regarding her ESA entitlement and the status of her CTS claim.
25. Further, the Council made adjustments for Ms Y in November 2025, shortly after it received a letter from her asking it to communicate with Mr X on her behalf due to her illness and disabilities. The Council updated its records at this time that Ms Y is vulnerable and that any information should be obtained by asking for a visit with Ms Y. But, there was an indication Ms Y might need adjustments earlier than this, as she told the Council of her ill health and daily needs in her letter she sent to it in late August 2025. So, the Council’s delay in considering whether Ms Y might need adjustments was fault.
26. The faults caused an injustice to Ms Y, which the Council has acknowledged. Ms Y received a court summons for non-payment of her council tax. The Council accepts this would not have happened had it reinstated the direct debit when Ms Y asked it to. Ms Y also suffered avoidable distress and worry because of the faults by the Council.
27. The Council has acknowledged the impact caused to Ms Y, but Mr X has also suffered an injustice. Due to Ms Y’s vulnerabilities, Mr X pursued matters on behalf of Ms Y, including making telephone calls to the Council, attending court with Ms Y, and writing to the Council on her behalf. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration.
28. In remedying the injustice, the Council has:
• Apologised to Mr X and Ms Y.
• Told Mr X it is taking steps to improve communication and document handling to prevent similar occurrences in future.
• Told Mr X it is reviewing its enforcement procedures to ensure decisions that affect vulnerable service users are appropriately assessed and documented in line with its equality obligations.
29. The Council’s apology it made in its response to Mr X’s complaint is appropriate. As such, I have not recommended the Council apologise. I have also not made any service improvement recommendations. This is because the Council says it is already taking action to improve its services, and we have made service improvement recommendations on another case where similar faults were identified. However, these outcomes alone are not sufficient to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X and Ms Y by the Council’s faults. I have made recommendations below to reflect this.
30. Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us. This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, or it might be more of a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties they have been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider.
31. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the council had not occurred.
32. Our guidance on remedies says for distress, which includes inconvenience and frustration, where we decide it is appropriate, we will normally recommend a remedy payment of up to £500. This will reflect circumstances including the severity of the distress; the number of people affected; and the vulnerability of the people affected. In the circumstances of this case, namely, the vulnerability of Ms Y, the level of distress caused to her due to the court summons she was issued which could have been prevented but for the Council’s fault, and the injustice caused to Mr X, I consider the Council should make symbolic payments. I have detailed these below.

Back to top

Action

33. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mr X and Ms Y by the identified faults, the Council will take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Pay Ms Y £500 to acknowledge the injustice caused to her by the Council’s faults, as outlined in paragraph 26.
• Pay Mr X £150 to acknowledge the injustice caused to him by the Council’s faults, as outlined in paragraph 27.
34. Within three months of my final decision, the Council will also send us evidence of the actions it says it is taking to improve its services as outlined in points two and three of paragraph 28.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

36. I uphold Mr X’s complaint and find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman