The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council acted without transparency and proportionality in pursuing council tax arrears, and breached the Equality Act. 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 acted without transparency and proportionality in the way it pursued council tax arrears. He says it did not contact him to establish vulnerability and did not discharge its duties under the Equality Act. Mr X wants the Council to cancel the court order and improve its practices.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X. This includes the complaint response from the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
The law says people must pay their council tax as billed and on time. If they do not pay councils can serve a summons, apply to the court for a liability order and instruct bailiffs.
Mr X’s direct debit for January and February 2023 was returned by his bank. The Council cancelled the direct debit and issued an invoice for payment by March. Mr X did not pay so the Council issued a reminder in April and a summons in May. The court issued a liability order in July.
Mr X did not pay the instalment due in April 2023 for the new tax year. The Council issued a reminder and then a summons for a hearing in July.
In June Mr X set up a new direct debit. The Council sent a letter confirming the payment arrangement. Mr X made the July payment but the bank returned his instalments as unpaid for August and September. The Council sent a reminder in August but, as the court had issued a liability order in July, it then passed the debt to bailiffs as the debt remained unpaid.
Mr X complained in November and told the Council he has a medical condition. The Council noted his condition and informed the bailiffs. The bailiffs subsequently told the Council Mr X had made a payment arrangement and had two more instalments to pay.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council followed the correct process by issuing reminders, summonses and setting up payment arrangements before involving bailiffs. The law allows councils to apply for a liability order and the court agreed the council tax was owed. There was no lack of transparency because the reminders, summons and payment plan notified Mr X of the arrears and potential action if he did not pay. Mr X was aware of the arrears because he set up a new direct debit in June for both sets of arrears. The Council’s actions reflect the council tax legislation and, given the opportunities Mr X had to pay before any court or bailiff action began, there was no lack of proportionality.
Mr X says the Council breached the Equality Act. Only the courts can decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, the Council acted correctly by noting Mr X’s report of his medical condition and passing that information to the bailiffs; it is not required to ask if someone has a medical condition before starting recovery action. A person may have a disability or medical condition but that does not mean a council cannot take recovery action for arrears and I have not seen anything to suggest Mr X asked the Council to make any reasonable adjustments.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman