Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an Attachment of Earnings Order for council tax arrears. This is because the Council has provided a satisfactory response and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council imposed an Attachment of Earnings Order (AEO) despite telling him he had no arrears. Mr X wants the Council to remove the arrears.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & 24A(7), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X had council tax arrears and there was an AEO in place. The Council says in April 2023 it explained Mr X owed £384 to be collected by an AEO. Mr X says he was told during a call that he only had one more payment to make and the account would then be clear. The Council cannot locate this call to check what was said but there are notes indicating Mr X was told of the outstanding £384.
5. The employer did not make further deductions despite the Council chasing throughout the year. In October the Council sent a new AEO to the employer. Mr X contacted the Council. On 2 November the Council withdrew the AEO and set up a payment plan with Mr X. The Council chased the employer for confirmation it had withdrawn the AEO but the employer still deducted £281 from Mr X’s November salary. Mr X realised on 30 November that the employer had made a deduction.
6. The Council explained to Mr X what had happened and said it had tried to stop the employer making the deduction. On 8 December the Council refunded £200 which was the difference between the deduction and the payment due in November. Mr X has additional payments to make until March for the remaining arrears.
7. Mr X says the Council should remove the arrears because it told him in April he did not owe any more money.
8. There is a dispute about what the Council told Mr X in April but, due to the lack of evidence, it is unlikely we would be able to find out what was said. That said, there is evidence to suggest the Council told Mr X he still owed £384. There are elements of this case which the Council could perhaps have handled better but an investigation is not required for the following reasons.
9. The Council has provided a satisfactory response by explaining what happened, apologising, trying to stop the employer from making the deduction, issuing a refund and setting up a payment plan. This was a fair and proportionate response. Once this response is taken into account there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation. In saying this I have considered that the refund was made in early December thus reducing the impact of the deduction.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a satisfactory response and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman