Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax enforcement. This is mainly because any injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council sent correspondence about council tax debt she owed to the incorrect address. She says the Council then referred the debt to enforcement agents without giving her proper notice. Enforcement agents visited the wrong address three times, which Ms X says was intimidating and caused her distress. Ms X is also unhappy about the way the Council handled her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

2. I considered information provided by the complainant.
3. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council accepted, in its response to Ms X’s complaint, it sent correspondence about her council tax debt to the wrong address. The Council explained this happened because there were two addresses registered on Ms X’s council tax account, both provided by Ms X – a home address and the address of her former property management agent (the agent). The Council partially upheld this part of Ms X’s complaint because it felt Ms X was partly responsible for the error as she had provided two addresses. The Council apologised and said it will remind staff to use home addresses for council tax billings. It is unlikely an investigation by us would achieve more on this point.
5. The agent contacted Ms X regarding a council tax bill sent to its offices. Ms X then confirmed her home address with the Council but enforcement agents visited the agent’s address six days later. As the visits were not to Ms X’s address, and she was not present for them, any injustice caused to Ms X from visits to the agent is not significant enough to warrant investigation because Ms X was not there.
6. The Council apologised for its delay in responding to Ms X’s complaint. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint handling in isolation and, even if we did, we would be unlikely to achieve more than the Council has already done.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would achieve more than the Council has already done in relation to using the wrong address and its complaint handling. Any injustice arising from visits from enforcement agents is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman