Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council tax enforcement because the matter is out of time and there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council has taken unreasonable enforcement action against her for unpaid Council tax.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council says that Ms X was in arrears of Council tax of £1500 in 2016 when she moved away from the area. The Council says that she was aware of the arrears at the time as bills, reminders and summonses had been sent to her. Ms X contacted the Council in April 2016 to discuss the arrears.
8. The Council says that when she moved away they sent enforcement letters to the two new address they had been given but each were returned unopened.
9. Further enforcement costs were added to the arrears by the time Ms X had been finally contacted by the Council.
10. Ms X was aware of the arrears in 2016 and so any complaint about the bill is out of time and so out of jurisdiction. In the absence of an up to date address supplied by Ms X, the Council’s enforcement of that debt was not carried out with fault and so the Ombudsman could not question the amount of costs added.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
12. I am satisfied that the Council’s enforcement action was carried out without fault and so we will not investigate this complaint further.
13. Ms X has made a Subject Access Request but this is a matter for the ICO and so also out of jurisdiction.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is out of time and there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman