Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s enforcement action against Mr X because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s enforcement officer ignored his vulnerability in pursuing enforcement action for an unpaid debt. He says it did not respond to his requests for a payment plan and refused to speak to his support worker.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council delegates its role in enforcing unpaid debts to an enforcement agency.
7. An enforcement agent attended Mr X’s home, gave him an enforcement notice and warned he had two hours to make payment or the officer would seize his car. These actions are in line with the law. I note at this point the enforcement agent had not yet had the opportunity to consider any evidence of Mr X’s vulnerability. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
8. It is up to the Council’s enforcement agents to consider information in support of a person’s vulnerability, decide whether this is adequate evidence of vulnerability and if so, then decide whether to make changes to their enforcement process.
9. Documents show Mr X provided evidence of his vulnerability to the Council. In response the Council explained it had delegated responsibility for enforcement action to its agent and Mr X needed to send this to the enforcement agent for it to consider. He could also ask the agent to consider a payment plan. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
10. Mr X complains to the Ombudsman that he sent information and tried to engage with the agents but received no response. I cannot see this was raised to the Council or its agents to address through the complaints process. Rather it appears this complaint was premature at the time Mr X contacted us. In any event I do not consider an investigation is warranted as it appears Mr X’s car was not seized and he has since paid the debt. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman