Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an attachment of earnings order. There is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of an attachment of earnings order that it used to recover a housing benefit overpayment. She says the Council recovered more than it had agreed, and its officers were rude and requested unnecessary information before agreeing to a partial refund, which caused distress. She wants the Council to refund her the full amount deducted from her earnings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.

(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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils can use Attachment of Earnings Orders (AEO) as a means of recovering unpaid debt. An AEO requires an employer to deduct money owed from an employee’s salary and then pay this money to the Council. The amount deducted each month can very and is usually calculated by the employer, using government guidance to work out how much to deduct.
7. The Council served an AEO on Ms X’s employer, due to unpaid invoices for housing benefit overpayment dating back to 2015.
8. In March 2024, Ms X asked the Council to agree to a fixed rate deduction of £50 per month, instead of a variable rate as calculated by her employer. The Council agreed her request and sent her employer the amended instruction. The employer did not action the request and, at the end of March, £530.88 was deducted from Ms X’s account.
9. Ms X contacted the Council about the matter. She says during that contact, staff were rude and unprofessional and requested unnecessary additional information to ascertain her level of hardship. Once Ms X had provided the requested information, the Council agreed to refund her £400. It processed this refund the same day it received the money from Ms X’s employer.
10. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The initial error which led to the deduction of £530.88 from her wages was not Council fault. When she contacted the Council, it was reasonable for it to need to clarify her circumstances before agreeing to a refund, given she owed the Council money. In its complaint response, the Council has acknowledged her conversations with staff were difficult, and, given the Council agreed to refund most of the money deducted, it is unlikely an investigation by us would achieve anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman