Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s enforcement of a council tax bill. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman can add to what the Council has already said or change the outcome of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council was wrong to carry out enforcement action for unpaid council tax as he was unaware of the debt. Mr X complains about fees added to the account and the conduct of an enforcement agent.

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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered what Mr X said in his complaint and background information the Council has sent to me. I have sent my draft decision to Mr X for his comments. Mr X made no further comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says he received no notification of a council tax debt on his rental property until after the Council had obtained a liability order against him and the debt had been passed to enforcement agents. Mr X is unhappy about additional fees that have been added to the account.
5. The Council says it sent letters about the debt to Mr X’s rental property as this was the contact address it had for him. It says as Mr X’s first contact with it was after summons/court fees and enforcement fees had been added to the account, these were liable to be paid.
6. As Mr X did not make full payment of the debt, enforcement action continued and a further fee of £235 was incurred. The Council has however waived this amount. The account is now settled.
7. Mr X also complains about a conversation he had with the enforcement agent during which he says the enforcement agent was unwilling to check what previous communications Mr X had had with the company; gave misleading information about his authority and the legality of the process; and sought to intimidate him by referring to his military past.
8. The Council says the enforcement agent referred to his military background to establish some ‘common ground’ after Mr X himself had mentioned he had been in the military. The Council apologised to Mr X if he found this to be intimidating. It has said without further information it is unable to comment on Mr X’s comments about the agent giving misleading information. In the Council’s view, there is no evidence to suggest the enforcement agent acted inappropriately.

Analysis

9. The Council has cancelled the additional fee added to Mr X’s account. From the information seen so far, the earlier fees were added due to the normal progression of the enforcement procedure and I cannot see any fault in that. It is unlikely we can add to what the Council has said in this regard or change the outcome of the complaint.
10. The Council has responded to Mr X’s complaint about the enforcement agent. In the absence of further evidence of inappropriate conduct by the agent, it is unlikely we can add to the Council’s response.
11. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. My decision is that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to what the Council has said or change the outcome of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman