Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about action taken by the Council to recover outstanding debt from Mr X. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council unfairly appointed a second Enforcement Agent (EA) to collect Council Tax arrears. He says this went against a disability agreement he had with it that said all contact would come from one source.
2. Mr X also complains the Council did not provide an explanation about the debt being pursued.
3. Mr X says this has caused stress and anxiety and extra costs.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council instructed an EA to collect Housing Benefit arrears from Mr X. The Council then instructed a different EA to trace Mr X as it was unable to locate him to collect Council Tax arrears from his previous address. Mr X believed he had an arrangement to have one point of contact due to his disability, so this caused confusion. Mr X also incurred fees for tracing.
9. The Council said it had no record of the agreement to offer one point of contact. The Council followed its policy about sharing personal data between departments when trying to locate Mr X and we would not expect a council to check someone’s contact details with other departments before pursuing unpaid Council Tax debt. It is unlikely that we will identify enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
10. I understand there may have been confusion as Mr X was being pursued for both Council Tax payments and debt relating to his Housing Benefit at the same time and this could have caused Mr X anxiety and stress.
11. However, the Council has a statutory duty to collect Council Tax. The Council was entitled to take enforcement action when Mr X did not keep up with the agreed instalment plan. The EA took reasonable steps to contact Mr X before taking action which incurred further fees. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
12. Mr X also complained the Council did not explain clearly and became combative. The Council has now adequately explained what happened and offered to arrange a manageable payment agreement for Mr X. It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to this response. Mr X is unhappy with how the Council dealt with his complaint. 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

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman