Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s use of attachment of earnings orders to recover unpaid council tax. It would be reasonable for him to challenge his liability at the Valuation Tribunal or ask the county court to set aside any liability orders. There is not enough evidence of fault in Council’s use of attachment of earnings orders, and it is not responsible for calculating the amount of deductions by Mr X’s employer.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council continued to use attachment of earnings orders whilst he disputed his liability for council tax.
2. Mr X said this caused him to suffer stress and financial hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
5. We consider 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
  (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

6. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. It would be reasonable for Mr X to dispute his liability for council tax at the Valuation Tribunal, and to apply to the county court to have any liability order set aside if he considers it was wrongly issued.
10. Mr X also complained about information access and a subject access request made to the Council. The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider this.
11. The Council has discretion to make attachment of earnings orders but there are limits to the amount it can deduct. The orders issued to Mr X’s employer detail these limits.
12. The Council can legally enforce a maximum of two attachment of earning orders at the same time. The Council has done this but enforcing two orders resulted in large and differing amounts deducted from Mr X’s wages.
13. The available evidence suggests the Council used the orders correctly. It provided an explanation of deductions to Mr X and recognised the financial impact. The law does not require the Council to suspend an attachment of earnings because someone disputes their liability but does not use their appeal rights.
14. The Council accepted delay in its communications with Mr X but noted this did not impact on enforcement. It would not be a good use of public money to investigate the Council’s complaint handling alone.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• it would be reasonable for him to challenge his liability at the Valuation Tribunal or ask the county court to set aside any liability orders;
• there is not enough evidence of fault in Council’s use of attachment of earnings orders; and
• it is not responsible for calculating the amount of deductions his employer makes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman