The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation. We cannot investigate the liability order as this relates to court proceedings.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council told him in a telephone call a payment would clear all his council tax arrears over two accounts. Mr X paid. But the Council then denied the call and said there was another balance outstanding.
linked a further joint council tax debt to his new address.
failed to take account of his vulnerability.
unfairly cancelled a payment arrangement.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended).
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).
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
The Council replied explaining the three council tax accounts and the amounts outstanding. It confirmed Mr X had paid one account. It said there was no evidence it advised Mr X in a telephone call that there was no other council tax outstanding. It said its notes showed it explained in January 2025 there were three outstanding amounts due. It also said it had no record of advising him to ignore future letters.
The Council said there was £301 due for a period from a previous address. It noted Mr X said he was not living in the property, but it said he was liable as his tenancy continued. It asked him for further information about the property being unoccupied. It also advised how he could claim a discretionary reduction. The Council accepted a £20 per month payment arrangement.
The Council said Mr X was jointly liable for a period at a previous address. Mr X disagreed because he said he had not received any summons or liability order in his name. The Council detailed the notices it had sent. Mr X said he knew the jointly liable person was paying the arrears. The Council said it could seek recovery from all the jointly liable parties. It explained it had advised its enforcement agent that Mr X was vulnerable and his account was flagged. The agent had trained staff wo would consider his vulnerability and circumstances.
We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. The Council has clarified the outstanding council tax and noted it had explained this to Mr X in a telephone call. It also detailed the notices it sent to Mr X.
We cannot investigate the summons or liability orders Mr X is disputing. This is because the summons and liability order are court proceedings.
The Council noted Mr X’s vulnerability and advised its agent who can consider his circumstances. There is not enough evidence of fault here to warrant investigation.
Mr X has complained the Council failed to confirm a payment arrangement and then cancelled it. This is a new complaint, and as I explain in paragraph four, we will not investigate a complaint where Council has not had an opportunity to consider it. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to pursue the complaint through the Council’s complaints procedure.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. We cannot investigate the summons and liability order Mr X disagrees with because these are court proceedings.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman