Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council placing a charge on the complainant’s property and refusing to discuss the matter with him. We could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr J, says the Council placed a charge on a property he owns without his knowledge. He says he raised the issue six years ago, but the Council would not correspond with him. He also complains the Council refused to discuss the matter with him during the recent sale of the property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr J and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council confirms it removed waste from one of Mr J’s properties in 2015. As it did not receive payment, it placed a charge in the property.
6. Mr J says the invoice was issued in the name of a child, and the Council refused to speak to him about it at the time.
7. The Council says it made a spelling error on the invoice issued in 2015. This meant the invoice was issued in the female version of Mr J’s name.
8. Mr J’s solicitor contacted the Council when it became aware of the land charge when the property was being sold. The solicitor paid the land charge on completion of the sale.
9. I understand Mr J is frustrated that the Council would not discuss the matter with him. However, the Council has explained it believed Mr J’s solicitor was representing him on his complaint. This meant the Council could not communicate with Mr J direct as this would breach professional conduct rules. As soon as Mr J’s solicitor confirmed she was only representing Mr J in the sale of the property and not his complaint, the Council wrote direct to Mr J.
10. It apologised for the error in issuing the invoice in the wrong name in 2015. It confirmed it had already removed the local charge from the property. And it would not pursue payment. As the solicitor had already paid the charge, the Council confirmed it is returning the money to the solicitor. The solicitor can forward the money to Mr J when it is received.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr J’s complaint. The Council has apologised and explained:
• how the error occurred
• why it did not originally correspond directly with Mr J; and
• it is in the process of repaying the money direct to Mr J’s solicitor
12. Further investigation will not add to the investigation already carried out by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman