Summary: Mr B complains about the Councils handling of his council tax debt. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, complains about the way the Council, and bailiffs acting on its behalf, dealt with the collection of his council tax arrears. He complains about the way the Council dealt with his complaints about this matter, its failure to put a hold on the bailiffs’ pursuit of the debt and about the nature of the bailiffs’ contact with him.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B and the Council. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B bought a property. He did not tell the Council he was not living there nor did he provide a contact address for correspondence. As a result of this, the Council sent the council tax bill, reminder and summons notice to the property address. The Council did not receive payment so it obtained a Liability Order and passed the debt on to bailiffs in October 2018. The bailiffs issued a Notice of Enforcement to the property address and visited in December which incurred enforcement costs totalling £310 which were added to the debt.
5. Mr B then became aware of the debt and in February 2019 he emailed the Council twice about it. At this stage he provided his correspondence address and contact number. Having received no response to his emails, he telephoned and was advised the whole debt, including the bailiff fees, was payable. Believing this call had covered the points in Mr B’s two emails, the officer did not respond to them.
6. Two days after the call, Mr B made payment directly to the Council but excluded the bailiff fees as he thought he should not have to pay them. The Council responded to his further contact through February where he continued to dispute the fees and it made clear he was liable for them.
7. In mid-April Mr B emailed the Council again to contest the fees and complain about the nature of the bailiffs’ communication with him which he said was aggressive and excessive. Further communication from Mr B through June led to the Council responding at Stage 1 of its complaints procedure at the end of June, at Stage 2 in July and at Stage 3 in August. At each stage the Council acknowledged there had been failings and delays in its response to his communication and complaints for which it apologised. It also accepted some limited bailiff contact had been excessive but it confirmed it had no grounds to waive the bailiffs costs incurred prior to Mr B first contacting the Council with his details in February 2019.

Assessment

8. The root of Mr B’s predicament stems from his failure to advise the Council of his correspondence address when he bought his property. The Council properly issued council tax communication to the property address as it had no other. Mr B told the Council that he did not think his property had been registered as a stand alone flat and so not liable for council tax but this does not change his liability.
9. The Council has already accepted it should have responded to Mr B’s two February emails to tell him in writing what it had already told him over the phone. It has acknowledged there was some delay in responding to the complaints he had made and that some communication from the bailiffs had been excessive. However, while this fault is noted, I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman is likely to achieve the outcome Mr B seeks. There are no grounds to suggest the Council should waive the enforcement fees and insufficient grounds to consider proposing compensation for the fault that has been noted.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman