The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about action the Council took over a late council tax payment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the way the Council issued a reminder and summons for a missed council tax payment. He is also unhappy the summons was sent to his wife. Mr X wants compensation.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
The law says councils can issue a reminder seven days after a missed council tax payment. The tax payer is required to pay the council tax within seven days of the date of the reminder; this may be taken from the date on the letter or the date of posting. The law does not require councils to use registered post and the tax payer is still required to pay by the due date even if there is a delay in receiving the reminder.
The law also says that if the person does not pay by the date on the reminder they lose the right to pay by instalments and all the outstanding council tax becomes due. If they do not pay the Council can issue a summons.
Mr X made an on-line payment in July for the council tax due 1 August. The payment failed. Mr X was unaware of the failed payment. Mr X later found out there was a problem with his on-line account which has now been corrected. I do not know if that is what caused the failed payment.
The Council issued a reminder on 10 August requiring payment of the missed instalment by 17 August; the Council says the reminder was collected by Royal Mail on 12 August. Mr X had not received the reminder by 17 August when he went away for a few days. He saw the reminder on Saturday 20 August. That evening he made an on-line payment for August and September. However, because he had not brought the account up to date within the specified time, the Council withdrew the right to pay by instalments and issued a summons. While Mr X had made two payments, the full amount was due. The Council served a summons on Mr X and his wife; his wife was included because, by law, she is jointly liable for the council tax. The Council subsequently withdrew the summons and costs in recognition of the two payments Mr X had made.
Mr X says the Council gave unrealistic dates for payment on the reminder and issued a summons even though he had made two payments. He says his reputation could be damaged and the on-line account is not fit for purpose. He says the Council is testing a new system which proves there are problems with the existing system.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council issued the reminder in accordance with the legislation and did not take further action until after seven days had passed. It is unfortunate Mr X did not see the reminder until 20 August but that does not reflect fault by the Council. And, while he immediately made two payments, by then the full amount was due so there is no suggestion of fault in the Council serving a summons. There was an IT problem with Mr X’s account but this does not mean the system is not fit for purpose and he made two successful payments in August. The Council may be in the process of upgrading the system but this does not prove the existing system is not fit for purpose.
I also will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. There was a problem with the on-line account but this has been corrected. The summons has been withdrawn, Mr X has not suffered any financial loss and is now back in the position he would have been in had these events not occurred. I have not seen any evidence his reputation has been damaged and, in any case, the summons was issued correctly. In addition, while Mr X wants us to investigate exactly when the reminder was collected by Royal Mail, further action is not required due to the lack of injustice.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman