Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the recovery of council tax. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation and we will not investigate complaints about complaints handling where we are not investigating the substantive matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:

• failed and delayed in responding to his queries;
• unreasonably applied enforcement fees despite his engagement;
• ignored his requests to set up a payment plan; and
• delayed in responding to his complaint.

2. Mr X said these matters caused him emotional distress and he wanted the Council to acknowledge its failings, agree an affordable payment plan, and review its complaints handling process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council issued Mr X with a bill for unpaid council tax for a property he used to reside in with multiple residents. Mr X says he first knew about this debt when he received a notice of enforcement at his new property in September 2025.

Delay and failure in responding to Mr X’s queries

8. Mr X said when he received the notice of enforcement, he contacted the Council to discuss his sole liability for the debt, as there were multiple residents living in the named property at the time. The Council explained where it is unable to trace all responsible tenants, any individual it can trace can be held liable for the entire debt, which in this case was Mr X.
9. Mr X said he did not dispute that he was liable for the debt, but said the Council delayed in responding to his further queries about the liability.
10. The evidence I have seen shows the Council responded to Mr X’s query and provided a 14-day hold on the debt to allow Mr X to trace any other residents who were also liable for the debt. When the hold period ended, Mr X had not been able to trace any other residents and had not made any payments towards the debt. Mr X’s liability had already been established so the Council resumed its recovery process.

Application of enforcement fees, despite Mr X’s engagement

11. Mr X complained the Council added enforcement fees to his debt, despite his engagement, which he believed to be unreasonable.
12. Mr X said he received the notice of enforcement in September 2025 and immediately contacted the Council and the enforcement agency to discuss the debt. When the 14-day hold period ended, Mr X had not been able to track down any other residents and had not made payment towards the debt. As such, the enforcement process resumed and enforcement fees were added to the original debt.

Failure to acknowledge Mr X’s requests to set up a payment plan

13. Mr X first contacted the Council to request a payment plan in October 2025, however, by this time the debt had already been passed to the enforcement agency, so the Council told Mr X to contact them to discuss payment plan options.
14. The evidence has shown that the Council offered to help negotiate a payment plan for Mr X with the enforcement agency and shortly after this, the enforcement agency also offered to set up a payment plan with Mr X.
15. We will not investigate any of the matters listed above as there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s complaint handling process as it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about these matters, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigation and we will not investigate complaints about complaints handling where we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman