Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about enforcement of Council Tax arrears. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not take into account his vulnerability when it calculated his Council Tax and took enforcement action. He also complains that its complaint responses ignored key information and made incorrect statements.
2. He says the Council’s actions caused distress, financial detriment and prevented him from attending a hearing.
3. Mr X says the Council should recognise it’s failures, apologise and review staff training. He wants the Council to refund enforcement costs and pause all enforcement until his Council Tax Reduction (CTR) and backdate request have been processed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X complained the Council knew about his vulnerabilities and did not share information between departments when calculating his Council Tax. The UK GDPR and Data protection Act 2018 gives organisations a framework for lawful sharing of information between departments. It also restricts sharing of information to circumstances when it is necessary.
10. It was reasonable that the Council did not share information between the Housing and Council Tax departments. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.
11. Mr X complained the Council failed to consider his request for CTR. The Council supported him to apply and referred him to the Local Support team.
12. The Council has now applied a reduction and offered an instalment plan. If Mr X disagrees, it would be reasonable for him to appeal through the Council’s appeal process.
13. Mr X complained the Council unfairly issued a summons before it confirmed his final liability, following his CTR request. Mr X informed the Council Tax department of his vulnerability after it issued the summons. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.
14. Mr X complained the Council continued with the liability order hearing after he said he could not attend for medical reasons. None of the statutory defences against a liability order applied to Mr X. Therefore, further investigation by the Ombudsman will not lead to a different outcome.
15. Mr X complained the Council refused to accept a verbal SAR request. The Council accepted this was an error. It apologised and accepted his SAR request. This is a reasonable response and remedies any injustice caused to Mr X.
16. Mr X complained about the Council’s complaint responses. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman