Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to tell him that deductions being made from his disability benefits had been stopped. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X says money had been deducted from his disability benefits for several years to clear a council tax debt. He says this was suddenly cancelled and the Council failed to tell him this. This led to enforcement agents showing up at his home and clamping his car inappropriately.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X has outstanding council tax arrears. The Council obtained a liability order for the debt in 2018. Mr X had been paying off the arrears through deductions from his disabilities benefits.
6. In January 2024, the Council was made aware the deductions that were being made from Mr X’s benefits was going to stop. The letter noted Mr X had been told this and advised him to contact the Council straightaway to make arrangements for any future payments.
7. The Council sent Mr X a letter in January 2024 to confirm the balance still owed. The letter also asked Mr X to make a payment in full to clear the balance otherwise the debt would be subject to further recovery action, including involvement of enforcement agents.
8. The Council confirmed Mr X did not respond to this letter or made a payment. As a result, the Council passed Mr X’s account to its enforcement agent for collection action. The Council said its enforcement agent sent Mr X a notice of enforcement letter, but Mr X did not respond.
9. In April 2024, the enforcement agent attended Mr X’s property. The Council accepts the enforcement agent clamped Mr X’s car, but noted the records showed the agent unclamped it 10 mins later once Mr X had provided evidence of his blue badge.
10. In response to his complaint, the Council agreed to recall the account form the enforcement agents and to resubmit the attachment of benefits request to the Department of Work and Pensions. In May, the Council confirmed the deductions had been accepted.
11. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council told Mr X the deductions had stopped, that he still owed a debt, and that he had to make separate arrangements to pay this off. We are also not likely to find fault with the Council’s decision to pass the account to its enforcement agents. The Council appropriately obtained a liability order which allows it to take action to recover the debt.
12. With regards to the complaint about the actions of the enforcement agent in clamping his car, the Council has accepted this was the case. However, an investigation is not justified as the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice. This is because the car was only clamped for around 10 minutes.
13. Further, an investigation is also not justified as it would lead to any further outcomes. The Council confirmed it had recalled the case from the enforcement agent and confirmed it had resubmitted for deductions to be made from his benefits again. This is appropriate in the circumstances to put Mr X back in the position he would have been if not for the claimed fault. An investigation would not lead to any further recommendations.
14. Mr X’s complaints about the Council declining his request for a discretionary housing payment and for not supporting him with downsizing his home are premature to the Ombudsman. This is because these issues have not been raised to the Council previously and the Council have not had the opportunity to respond to these complaint points. It is open to Mr X to raise these complaints separately with the Council and give the Council the opportunity to respond to the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman