The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council allowed council tax arrears to accrue without telling the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains the Council used the wrong address and did not tell her about council tax arrears before instructing bailiffs. She would have paid the arrears if she was aware of them and has incurred fees of £500. Ms X wants an apology and a refund.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X's representative made in response to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
From 1992 to 2020 Ms X paid the council tax by direct debit. The Council sent all the council tax letters to house number: 8/9. Until 2020 there were no council tax problems. In 2020 the direct debit failed. Ms X received a letter about setting up a new direct debit but she ignored it because she thought there was a direct debit in place. Ms X did not make alternative arrangements to pay her council tax and she accrued arrears.
During 2020 and 2021 the Council sent reminders, a summons and a letter about the liability order and impending bailiff action. Ms X did not respond or pay the arrears so the Council instructed bailiffs to collect £4721.
Ms X says she knew nothing about the arrears and would have paid if she had been aware. She says the correct address is 8-9 and she had asked other agencies to use that address. She says the Council should have used recorded delivery and mail in the area is often not delivered correctly.
In response to her complaint the Council explained it had addressed letters to 8/9 since 1992 with no problems. It said it had sent reminders and no letters had been returned. It declined to waive the fees because they had been correctly incurred. After the complaint the Council changed the address to 8-9. It asked Ms X to confirm receipt of the 2022/23 bill but says she declined. The Council noted Ms X was late paying the April 2022 instalment.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council used the address 8/9 for many years and unless officers were alerted to a problem, or Ms X asked them to use a different address, there would be no reason for it to use a different format for the address. There is no requirement for councils to use registered post and, as Ms X agrees she received the letter about the direct debit, it appears at least some of the letters were delivered. The Council did not receive any undelivered letters so there was no reason for it not to proceed with the normal enforcement action which culminated in the use of bailiffs. In addition, following the failed direct debit, it is reasonable to expect Ms X to have been aware, from her bank statements, that she had not paid any council tax since early 2020. It is unfortunate Ms X incurred fees but there is nothing to suggest this is due to council fault or that we need to start an investigation.
Mr X’s representative has referred to the Council imposing an eight per cent surcharge. The Council has not charged a surcharge but has charged court and bailiff costs in line with the regulations.
Final decision
We will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman