Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the enforcement agents acting on behalf of the Council behaved unreasonably. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says that the enforcement agents acting on behalf of the Council behaved unreasonably. He says they refused to accept his payment plan, harassed him and did not provide satisfactory responses to his complaints.

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 that there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I reviewed the complainant’s comments to my draft decision.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Since issuing a Notice of Execution in January 2021, the enforcement agents have communicated with Mr X both on the phone and in writing. In response to Mr X’s suggested payment plan, the agents requested details of the household income and expenditure to justify sums proposed by Mr X to be paid monthly. Mr X did not provide detailed financial information requested from him.
7. In subsequent letters the enforcement agents provided reasons for their actions, requested details of Mr X’s financial circumstances, and explained how enforcement fees accrued. They also notified Mr X of sanctions for non-compliance and next steps to be undertaken.
8. In his comments Mr X queried that the draft decision was based on a proper consideration of the evidence. In his opinion the evidence already submitted to the Ombudsman shows faults of the enforcement action, which led to harassment and injustice. Additionally he requested that we also obtain and consider transcripts of his telephone conversations with the enforcement agents.
9. Obtaining further evidence, such as telephone conversations transcripts, would be part of the further investigation of the complaint, if already submitted evidence justified fault.
10. Mr X mentioned 2 main aspects of the enforcement action which led, in his opinion, to injustice and harassment – lack of response from the enforcement agents to his request for a form to submit his income and expenditure and their non-acceptance of his payment plan.
11. In their email of 4 February 2021 enforcement agents clarified details of the financial information that they required from Mr X. Not supplying a specific form cannot be seen as a failing.
12. Regarding non-acceptance of the payment plan proposed by Mr X I am satisfied that the enforcement agents communicated extensively with Mr X in the attempt to accommodate his financial circumstances. The Ombudsman can only review the process rather than comment on the specific arrangements.
13. Although Mr X remains unhappy about the way the enforcement proceedings were carried out, written responses from the enforcement agents demonstrate professional and reasonable conduct when communicating with Mr X. There is no evidence of harassment or unreasonable behaviour.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman