Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to tell him it had referred his unpaid debt to the Sherriff’s Office and the additional costs this incurred. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different result.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not tell him it had passed his debt to the Sherriff’s Office and that he would incur more fees because of this. He wants the Council to refund any extra costs he has already paid and cancel any remaining outstanding fees.

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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• 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. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. Mr X had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. In 2016 Mr X received a letter from the Sherriff’s Office about an unpaid debt he owed the Council.
6. He says his wife wrote to the Council and arranged with the court to repay the debt instalments. This arrangement was agreed with the court.
7. Mr X says in 2018 he understood he had paid off the debt. He says he then found out the Council was sending the payments to the Sherriff’s Office. He also says the Council delayed in sending the payments for a few months which caused him to incur additional costs.
8. Mr X complains the Council should have contacted him before involving the Sherriff’s Office, knowing that he was suffering ill health and disability, and the financial strain he was under. He says the Council’s actions caused his debt to almost double.

Assessment

9. The Council says it informed Mr X multiple times starting in 2014 that non-payment would result in the debt being referred to the Sherriff’s Office. Because of Mr X’s failure to follow payment plans the Council referred the matter in 2016.
10. I understand that Mr X says he was not aware the Council had referred the debt and that he would incur extra costs. However, the correspondence I have seen shows that Mr X was told that if he did not make the payments then the Council would instruct high court enforcement officers. He was also told there would be no further correspondence from the Council. This is an action the Council is entitled to take.
11. Mr X also complains he was not aware of the outstanding balance. As the Sherriff’s Office is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction this is not something we can address. I understand he wants any extra costs that he has paid refunded. And any outstanding amount cancelled. However, as these are court fees this is not something the Ombudsman can achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate the complaint that the Council failed to tell him that it had referred his case to the Sheriff’s Office. This is because it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. We cannot investigate the actions of the Sherriff’s Office or the costs that it has added to Mr X’s debt as this body and its actions are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman