Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Councils use of an enforcement agency in recovering Miss X’s council tax debt. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains enforcement agents collecting a council tax debt on behalf of the Council have harassed her and failed to consider the fluctuating nature of her income when trying to arrange a payment plan for the outstanding debt.
2. Miss X wants the behaviour of the enforcement agency to be investigated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. (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 Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X first contacted the Council in February 2025 about debts passed to enforcement agents acting on the Council’s behalf. This led to a complaint which was responded to by the Council in January 2026. Miss X does not dispute liability for the outstanding debt.
7. Initially, Miss X and the enforcement agency agreed a monthly payment plan. Miss X paid regularly and on time. When the Council obtained more Liability Orders, the payment plan amount increased. In March 2025, the agency recognised it caused some confusion through an administrative error when the amount was increased. It agreed to reduce enforcement charges as a result of its error.
8. In May 2025, Miss X made a partial payment towards the newly agreed amount. The enforcement agency allowed the rest of that payment to be paid at a later date. When Miss X wanted to split a scheduled payment across two dates in the following month, the enforcement agency told her this was not possible.
9. Miss X complained about this. The enforcement agency recognised the information it gave Miss X to be incorrect. The agency apologised, recognised a training need for its staff and invited Miss X to discuss a suitable payment plan considering her staggered income. It placed a hold on enforcement for one week. Miss X did not contact the agency to discuss a new repayment plan. I am satisfied that the agency, acting on behalf of the Council, considered Miss X’s fluctuating income when attempting to agree a revised payment plan. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
10. On the same day, Miss X received a message from the agency about removal of goods. However, this was received prior to the discussion with the agency about its error and the hold on enforcement action it then put in place.
11. Miss X complained that she was harassed by the agency. The Council’s complaint response recognises that confusion was caused by the agency due to administrative errors. The agency took action to correct these errors, including to reduce enforcement charges. During this time, the Council ensured that the agency would not contact Miss X whilst it considered her complaint. The Council has considered Miss X’s complaint about the conduct of enforcement undertaken on its behalf. It recognised its complaint response was late and apologised to Miss X for this.
12. The Council has reviewed contact between Miss X and the agency. It found that contact from the agency to Miss X was in line with usual and correct procedures and that it did not contact her unnecessarily. As part of its consideration, it offered to write-off some outstanding debt as a gesture of goodwill for any undue upset caused. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council came to this decision to warrant further investigation.
13. Throughout the Council’s consideration of Miss X’s complaint, it evidenced, on two occasions, offers to take control of the debt back from enforcement agents if Miss X agreed to its proposed repayment plan calculated following a financial assessment. This had potential, subject to Council review, to remove costs for Miss X associated with the Council instructing an enforcement agent. I am satisfied that the Council considered the nature of Miss X’s income when proposing an ongoing payment plan to ensure it was likely going to be affordable for her.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman