Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the recovery of council tax arrears. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says the Council misled him and did not say it would continue with council tax recovery action even though he had a made a payment plan. Mr X wants the Council to provide better training to staff and pay him compensation.

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. (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 Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X has received court summonses between 2018 and 2023 for council tax arrears. When a council serves a summons the notice says that all the outstanding council tax, plus costs, must be paid to prevent the court hearing. The magistrates will issue a liability order if the council tax is due. A council can instruct bailiffs once the court has issued a liability order. A liability order gives councils more power to secure payment of the arrears. On occasions the Council has withdrawn the summons when Mr X made a payment plan, but it was not required to do so.
5. In 2023 the Council served a summons for £2502 because Mr X had not paid the council tax for 2023/24 as billed; he also had arrears for previous years. In total, in July 2023, Mr X owed £3930. Mr X called the Council in July and set up a payment plan for the arrears. The arrangement notice said further costs would be added after the hearing. Mr X says he was told the court hearing would be cancelled. The Council did not cancel the hearing and the court granted a liability order.
6. Mr X did not keep to the payment plan and stopped making payments in October. The Council issued a default notice and instructed bailiffs.
7. Mr X complained in January about the bailiffs and said the Council had misled him into thinking the payment plan would prevent court action. He said the Council had been deceptive. He also complained he was told there was no Ombudsman who could consider his complaint. Mr X wanted the Council to recall the debt from the bailiffs and pay compensation.
8. The Council said there is no recording of the call so it cannot check what was said. It apologised if PA misheard what was said during the call. It explained why it had issued the summons and said that, previously, Mr X had set up payment plan but the case was still heard in court and a liability order issued. The Council said it had, on occasions, cancelled the summons because the level of arrears was low. But, it said it is not standard practice to withdraw a summons if someone sets up a payment plan.
9. The Council explained why it had instructed bailiffs and said he owed £3029 to the bailiffs and £299 to the Council. The Council apologised for giving the wrong information about the Ombudsman and said this had been identified as a training issue.
10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The final notice required Mr X to pay all the arrears to avoid a court hearing; although Mr X set-up a payment plan he did not pay all the arrears, so the Council was not required to cancel the hearing. I appreciate Mr X says he was misled but, as there is no call recording, I cannot comment on this. However, as Mr X has previously made plans when legal action has not been withdrawn then, on the balance of probabilities, it is reasonable to expect he would have known the action would continue. Further, Mr X did not keep to the payment plan so further action would have happened even if the case had not progressed to court in July. And, as Mr X defaulted on the plan, the law allowed the Council to use bailiffs.
11. Mr X says the amount of the arrears stated by the Council is wrong. The Council explained how much Mr X owes for each year. If Mr X thinks any of these figures are wrong he would need to contact the Council and provide evidence to show the figures are inaccurate.
12. It is unfortunate the Council gave inaccurate information about our service. But, the Council apologised, identified a training need and signposted Mr X to us. Given this response, this error does not amount to fault requiring an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman