Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a council tax payment arrangement and Mr X’s complaints about this. This is because the Council has taken suitable action to remedy the injustice. There is either not enough evidence of fault, or significant remaining injustice in other matters.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council was at fault in its handling of a council tax payment arrangement. He said the Council sent an unfair and threatening email about a payment arrangement review which stated it would take the full remaining amount by direct debit nine days later. Mr X said this would cause him financial hardship. He could not agree the increased monthly instalment the Council requested. He also says the Council did not properly investigate his stage one and two complaints.

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 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. (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 replied apologising for the tone of its review email, and that a specific officer Mr X requested had not called back. It also confirmed the date it gave for the direct debit to take the full outstanding amount was incorrect, as it should have referred to January not December. The Council said it would provide training for and officer and it would call Mr X to discuss a payment arrangement.
7. In its final response to Mr X’s complaint the Council said:
• Mr X complained the Council had not warned him about the payment review. However, it had advised him when it set up the payment arrangement that he must contact it about the review in December 2025. Mr X had agreed to this.
• It had proposed a £20 per month arrangement and had not imposed it on him. It was Mr X’s decision to cancel the direct debit.
8. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council offered an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by its faults. It has apologised to Mr X. It also provided training to an officer. These are the remedies that we would suggest if the Council had not already taken this action. There is not enough evidence of fault or significant remaining injustice to investigate Mr X’s complaint about no warning of the review.
9. We will not investigate the complaint handling issues Mr X raised. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not investigating the substantive issue. 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

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman