Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s Enforcement Agent. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to send him a council tax bill in the correct name. He said its communication with him was poor. He also complained about the actions of the Council’s Enforcement Agent. He said they entered his property without showing a warrant; refused to leave and removed his vehicle which contained essential work items and medication. He said the Council did not consider his vulnerability before taking the items.
2. Mr X said the incident had caused him significant trauma and stress. He said he was admitted to hospital after being unable to access his medication.
3. Mr X wants the Council to return his property; pay him compensation for being unable to work and to provide a written apology.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained the Council would not communicate with him about his council tax and that it had failed to send his council tax bill in the correct name.
8. In its complaint response the Council said Mr X had contacted its Customer Services on multiple occasions. It said the staff in Customer Services were not trained in council tax, but when they offered to put Mr X through to the correct team he refused. It also said that Customer Services could not raise complaints about matters already considered, or where there was already a complaint under review. It said Customer Services consistently directed Mr X to its council tax recovery team and provided details for that service.
9. The Council also set out the contact it had with Mr X since the start of 2024 in relation to his council tax bill. It acknowledged there was a minor spelling error in his name but stated that did not justify reconsideration of any recovery action. It suggested Mr X seek legal advice if he disagreed.
10. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. I am satisfied the Council directed Mr X to the correct service to deal with his council tax queries. I am also satisfied he was able to raise complaints with the Council when he was dissatisfied with its service. Despite the incorrect spelling, the Council issued Mr X with council tax bills. Therefore, he knew the amount he needed to budget for. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
11. In response to Mr X’s complaint about its Enforcement Agent, the Council confirmed Mr X knew about the recovery action as it had issued him several enforcement notices. It said it had also sent Mr X evidence of the Liability Order. It said the Enforcement Agent had attended with the Police. It said its Enforcement Agent had attempted to give Mr X a copy of the necessary paperwork during the visit, but Mr X would not accept this. It later emailed this to him. It said it had reviewed the bodycam footage, and the Enforcement Agent gave Mr X eight opportunities to remove any possessions from his vehicle; it said he declined.
12. I am satisfied the Council correctly notified Mr X that it intended to take recovery action and that it was entitled to do so. The Enforcement Agent was supported by the Police and Mr X was provided the opportunity to remove belongings. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
13. Mr X told the Council he was vulnerable because it had not engaged with him constructively and because of his previous experience of enforcement action. He said his doctor had signed him off work because of the stress.
14. The Council has asked Mr X to provide more information about his difficulties and how they affect his ability to manage his council tax payments, so it can assess his circumstances fully. It suggested he get supporting information from his doctor if necessary. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has considered Mr X’s vulnerabilities. It is appropriate for Mr X to provide additional information. Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman