The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council incorrectly charged council tax and instructed bailiffs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to correctly charge council tax and then served a summons in error. He says the Council did not reply to a Subject Access Request (SAR). Mr X wants a refund of the £405 he was wrongly charged, an apology, and a response to his SAR.
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. (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, court and bailiff letters, and email exchanges. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
The law says people must pay their council tax as billed. If they do not pay councils can serve a summons and apply to the court for a liability order. A liability order is a court order saying the council tax, and costs, must be paid. If the person still does not pay councils can involve bailiffs. Bailiffs charge fees which must be paid in addition to the council tax.
Mr X moved into his home in about June 2021. He applied for the 25% single person discount. There was a delay by the Council in applying the discount because it was waiting for Mr X to state the date he moved into the property. In the meantime the Council issued a council tax bill which Mr X did not pay. I understand Mr X did not pay because he was waiting for the bill to be reduced by the discount.
In May the Council issued a summons for non-payment of council tax of £1940 plus costs. I have seen a copy of the summons and, while Mr X says he was not notified, it was sent to the correct address. Mr X subsequently said he moved into the property in late June. The Council awarded the discount from 1 July and issued a revised bill which applied a 25% reduction from 1 July. In April 2021 the Council asked Mr X to complete a financial statement so it could set up a payment plan for the council tax and costs. Mr X retuned the form but he had not completed it. Mr X did not make a payment offer or pay the council tax so in September the Council passed the case to bailiffs. The bailiffs charged a compliance fee of £75.
Mr X paid £1508 in October. The Council told Mr X he still needed to pay £170 plus the fee of £75. It warned Mr X he would incur further costs if he did not pay. Mr X did not pay the outstanding amount so bailiffs visited and Mr X incurred additional costs of £235.
In response to the complaint the Council said it had followed the correct process and it had been waiting for Mr X to provide information so it could award the discount. It said it asked for the information in January, February and March. The Council explained he was required to pay the council tax pending the award of the discount. The Council confirmed it received his SAR and had asked him for proof of identity and address. The Council said it would respond once he provided this information. Mr X has not provided this information.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council could not award the discount until Mr X provided the information it had requested and he did not do that until April. In the meantime he had not paid the council tax so the Council could serve a summons and charge costs. And, because Mr did not pay or return a completed financial statement, the Council involved bailiffs. Mr X could have paid in April or May when the costs were £95 but because he did not make a payment until October, he incurred additional fees.
There is nothing to suggest fault by the Council or indicate there has been a clerical error as Mr X suggests. Mr X says the Council ignored emails but, even if the Council did not respond to every email, it provided enough information for Mr X to pay without incurring costs. If he had been in credit after the discount was awarded, this could have been refunded. In addition, the Council could not process Mr X’s SAR because he has not provided the proof of identity as requested.
Final decision
We will not investigate this because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman