Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s council tax. The Council and Mr X share responsibility for Mr X accruing arrears. The Council’s actions are an adequate remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his council tax account. He says this resulted in arrears, causing distress and affecting him financially.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Due to a cyber-attack, the Council stopped taking Mr X’s council tax direct debits in 2020. The Council soon reinstated most people’s direct debits, but accepts it did not reinstate Mr X’s. Mr X’s council tax was not paid and arrears of over £2,500 accrued before the Council told Mr X in mid-2023. Mr X states that was the first he realised he had arrears.
8. Clearly there was some fault by the Council. However, we reasonably expect taxpayers to check their bank accounts and ensure they are paying what they should. The Council states most people whose direct debits were not reinstated quickly noticed they had not paid and told the Council at an early stage. If Mr X had done that, he would have noticed the money had not left his account before such high arrears accrued. So the Council and Mr X share responsibility for that level of arrears accruing.
9. In the 2023/24 council tax year the Council wanted Mr X to pay that year’s council tax over a shorter period than normal (because several months of the financial year had passed before the Council contacted Mr X seeking payment). This meant Mr X’s monthly direct debits for the rest of that year were higher than if he had been paying since the start of the year. However, I note the Council did that in the interests of quickly clearing at least that year’s arrears. I also note the Council did not take any action during 2023/24 regarding arrears from previous years. Overall, I do not criticise how the Council took payments in 2023/24.
10. When the new council tax year started in April 2024, the Council wanted Mr X to continue roughly the same level of monthly payment, to be divided between this year’s council tax and the arrears. The Council says this arrangement will take about four years to clear the arrears, about twice as long as it would usually allow for arrears of that level. So the Council has taken account of its contribution to the situation. Mr X said he was initially minded to accept that arrangement, but in April 2024 the Council mistakenly sent him reminders demanding immediate payment. Mr X then said, ‘But the council’s continued bad handling of the situation has made me angry to the point that I am now seriously considering refusing to do so…’ The Council quickly cancelled the reminders and apologised.
11. I appreciate the reminders would have upset and angered Mr X. However, given the cancellation of the reminders and the apology, it would be disproportionate for us to do more on that point. The Council is entitled to collect the arrears. I do not fault its view that the mistake with the reminders is not a good reason for it to change its position on the repayments.
12. Mr X told us he now wants the Council to return the arrears repayments he has already made, write off the rest of the arrears and pay him compensation.
13. Mr X owes the council tax. As explained above, he did not check his bank account properly as he reasonably could have done. He also had the benefit of the money for several years. In the circumstances, it would be disproportionate for us to recommend waiving the arrears. Overall, the action the Council has taken is an adequate remedy for its contribution to the problem.
14. It is not properly the Ombudsman’s role to assess damages and award compensation. That is appropriate for the courts. It is reasonable for Mr X to go to court if he believes the Council has caused damage meriting compensation.
15. Therefore any investigation by us is unlikely to achieve what Mr X wants and is also unlikely to achieve significantly more than the Council has already done.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council’s actions are an adequate remedy for its contribution to the problem. Compensation is properly for the courts, not the Ombudsman. Investigation is unlikely to achieve much more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman