The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s council tax and his complaints. This is because there is either not enough evidence of fault or of significant injustice to warrant investigation.
The complaint
Mr X says the Council failed to properly administer council tax recovery and its responses to his complaints. He says the Council did not consider proportionality or using its discretion when it sent a reminder demanding full payment. The Council accepted it should not have continued recovery action when he had a complaint outstanding. This caused him stress and anxiety.
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, or 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 it sent Mr X a notice that full payment of £627 was due because he had broken a payment arrangement. Mr X had made payments, but these were not in line with the arrangement. It had sent notices in accordance with council tax law and the recovery procedure. It apologised that Mr X found the notice threatening, but it must set out the consequences of non-payment. It said he could contact it to revise the payment arrangement. It had set a new arrangement following his complaint.
The Council noted that Mr X said it should consider individual circumstances, including vulnerability and use its discretion before issuing notices. The Council explained that the process was automated and it could not check individual cases before sending notices. However, it had sent an email about setting a new arrangement and a payment reminder before its notice.
The Council accepted its complaint response was delayed, and it could have held recovery while his complaint was outstanding. It apologised for this and that it had responded to Mr X directly rather than his MP.
We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault regarding the notices the Council issued to warrant investigation. Mr X had not paid in line with the payment arrangement. The Council had sent reminders before the broken payment arrangement letter.
Will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to hold recovery while it responded to his complaint. This is because the injustice from this is not significant enough to warrant investigation. The Council has apologised which is what we would expect it to do. It also set a new payment arrangement We would likely not make any further recommendations.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about complaint handling. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to warrant investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman