Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax recovery. This is because the Council has taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice due to its fault. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation into other matters.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to consider his vulnerability when pursuing council tax recovery. He says the Council issued a second summons within 6 months and took further unjustified enforcement action against him despite his solicitor undertaking to pay the arrears when the property was sold. He also says the Council sent notices to the wrong address. This caused him anxiety and stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended).
3. We must 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
• 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
6. The Council’s response accepted it should have held recovery action regarding the arrears for the 2025/26 council tax year. This was because Mr X’s solicitor had given an undertaking in September 2025 to pay the outstanding council tax when the property was sold. The Council apologised that it had lifted its hold on recovery in December 2025 and that it had referred the account back to its enforcement agent. The agent had contacted Mr X. It did not agree that it failed to send correspondence to the correct address because it said it had updated the address in June 2025.
7. The Council’s stage two response noted Mr X was over 60 but it did not accept he had provided information that he was vulnerable. It said he had not asked for advice or support when he called. The Council had held recovery for a month in mid 2025, and had sent him an income and expenditure form. However, Mr X did not return the form. The Council said there was no evidence of fault regarding the enforcement action for the 2024/25 council tax arrears, as this took place before it received the solicitor’s undertaking.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice from its fault in not accepting the solicitor’s undertaking earlier. It has apologised, withdrawn the account from its enforcement agent, and put the account on hold. It does not appear the agent visited or added fees in December 2025. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation of Mr X’s complaint that it failed to consider his vulnerability or regarding his complaint about the address it used.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has taken suitable action to remedy the injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman