Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax arrears because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains the Council instructed bailiffs for council tax arrears even though she had told the Council she could not maintain the payments. Ms X wants the case recalled from the bailiffs and the costs withdrawn.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and emails Ms X sent to the Council. I considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Ms X has council tax arrears from 2013 and 2014. Over the years the Council has made payment arrangements with Ms X which she has not maintained. At times the Council has withdrawn the account from bailiffs.
5. The Council recalled the debt from bailiffs in March 2020 and made a payment arrangement for £50 a month. It told Ms X that if she broke the plan the Council would involve bailiffs. Ms X paid £50 a month from March until November 2020. Ms X paid £25 in December, £25 in February and £2 in March. The Council passed the debt to bailiffs in April 2021 because Ms X had broken the arrangement. The current position is that Ms X has made a new arrangement with the Council although the case remains with the bailiffs.
6. Ms X sent an email to the Council in April 2020 saying she could not afford the £50 a month and had reduced it. She sent the email to an officer rather than to the council tax team. The officer was on leave and an out of office message was issued. The Council did not respond to the email and it was not passed to Ms X’s account. Ms X did not get in touch to chase for a response.
7. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council recalled the debt from the bailiffs in March 2020 and made it clear they would be re-engaged if Ms X broke the plan. Ms X kept to the plan until November 2020 and did not contact the Council before reducing the payment in December.
8. It is unfortunate that Ms X did not get a response to her April email but as she maintained the plan for another seven months I am not persuaded this had any bearing on the referral to the bailiffs. Ms X could have re-sent the email or, more importantly, she could have contacted the Council in late 2020. If Ms X was struggling with the payments at the end of the year it is reasonable to expect she would have contacted the Council immediately before reducing the payments. There is no evidence Ms X did this and the Council had warned Ms X that a failure to maintain the plan would result in further recovery action.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman