Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council handled the recovery of council tax. This is because any injustice Mrs X may have suffered is not significant enough to justify investigating. Also, we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome for Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to administer and communicate council tax recovery action on her account. She says she was given reassurances her Attachment of Earnings Order (AEO) would end in November 2025, but a further deduction was taken in December 2025, and she has been provided conflicting information. She says she has experienced financial hardship and emotional distress because of the situation. Mrs X wants the Council to issue an apology, provide a full reconciliation of her account, correct any errors on her account and provide compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X said she spoke to the Council in July 2025, and it told her the AEO would end in November 2025. The Council has no record of contact in July 2025 but has a record from October 2025. It said three monthly AEO payments were taken since October, with one further payment due in January 2026. While Mrs X said she expected payments to end in November 2025, the available evidence shows this would not have cleared the balance. This includes the December 2025 deduction, which formed part of the remaining balance. Even if there was some lack of clarity about when the AEO would end, Mrs X remained liable for the outstanding balance and the deductions were consistent with that balance. Any injustice this may have caused is not significant enough to justify investigating.
6. Mrs X complained her monthly payments had changed, making them unaffordable. The Council said it had not made any changes. It explained the AEO related to arrears from a previous council tax account and that Mrs X remained liable for the current year’s council tax, with three monthly instalments still due in the financial year. The Council provided an outline of the amounts owed for each council tax account she was liable for. It said that once Mrs X had completed the final AEO payment, it would be willing to discuss a realistic and sustainable repayment plan for the remaining accounts. It also provided a single point of contact to reduce confusion and support her in managing the matter. The Council said it had recorded Mrs X’s vulnerabilities, and these will be considered when it agrees any future payment arrangements. Further investigation is unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome for Mrs X.
7. Mrs X also complained about how the Council handled her complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because any injustice Mrs X may have suffered is not significant enough to justify investigating. Also, we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome for Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman