on the lessons that can be learnt from our complaints about end of life care given in care homes and in the home.
Category : Benefits and tax > Council tax Decision : Closed after initial enquiries Decision date : 12 Apr 2026 The complaint
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
H ow I considered this complaint
My assessment
F inal decision
The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions regarding Mr X’s council tax. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to warrant investigation.
The complaint
Me X says the Council was wrong to summons him for council tax arrears because he had paid. He said he had contacted the Council before it issued a summons but it did not reply. He also complains the Council’s response was patronising.
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, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
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 that Mr X had not paid in accordance with the Council’s payment instalments. He had set up a standing order, but this had no council tax reference. The Council found and allocated the payments, but following this Mr X did not pay as required. It sent reminders and then a final notice. However, it noted it had received correspondence from Mr X before it issued a summons. While it had progressed recovery in accordance with council tax legislation it accepted delay in responding to his enquiry. It removed the summons and costs as a gesture of goodwill.
In its final response the Council noted Mr X said its reply was patronising. However, it did not agree and said its response was a clear explanation why it had taken recovery action on Mr X’s account.
We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. The Council took council tax recovery action because Mr X had not paid in accordance with the Council’s instalments. The Council’s response explained this.
We will not investigate the Council’s delay replying to Mr X’s enquiry in August 2025. This is because there is no significant injustice that warrants investigation. The Council could continue its recovery without a responding to his enquiry. However, it used its discretion to withdraw the summons. There is no outstanding injustice even if we were to accept there was fault.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to warrant our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman