Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the issue of the Council’s summons and warrant for arrest. We cannot investigate court proceedings. There is not enough evidence of fault in Mr X’s other complaints to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council issued an invalid court summons and arrest warrant threatening imprisonment for council tax arrears. He says the Council failed to follow its complaints process when responding to his complaint about council tax enforcement, and it did not properly consider the impact of its enforcement action on a disabled child.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. 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)).

5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
8. The Council replied that the complaint fell outside its complaint policy because it related to council tax liability and court proceedings. It found no evidence of officer misconduct because the officer’s actions were part of the correct council tax recovery process. The Council said it had not been aware a disabled child was living at Mr X’s home until it received his complaint. It said its recovery team would consider evidence it requested. The Council apologised that it had not issued a stage one response as it should.
9. We will not investigate this complaint because we cannot investigate the service of the council tax summons, the liability order granted by the court, the committal summons, and the notice of arrest warrant. These are court proceedings and we cannot by law investigate as explained in paragraph 3.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about officer conduct and the Council’s consideration of a vulnerable occupant. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. The Council confirmed officers were following the correct council tax recovery procedure. The Council said Mr X had not advised it about a disabled occupant, and it would consider this.
11. We will not investigate complaint handling because we are not investigating the substantive matters Mr X raised.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot investigate court proceedings. There is not enough evidence of fault in other matters to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman