Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council handled his council tax account. There were some faults by the Council in how it managed Mr X’s council tax account and how it responded to his concerns. This caused Mr X distress, uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble chasing the Council for clarification. The Council’s failings also denied Mr X his right of appeal. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council has handled his council tax account. In particular, Mr X complains the Council:

• failed to deduct his council tax support (£604.08) from his Council Tax 2021/22 Bill but instead the Council incorrectly increased his bill by the same council tax support amount
• failed to resolve its miscalculation on several occasions he complained to it.

2. Mr X said the matter has caused him distress, frustration, worry, financial loss and it has affected his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided. I considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
9. I sent Mr X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and considered the comments received before reaching a final decision.
10. Although Mr X complained about his 2021/22 Council Tax Bill, I have exercised discretion to investigate matters from 2020. This is because I needed to consider the whole period to carry out a meaningful investigation.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and Guidance

11. Council Tax Support (CTS) is a reduction of the amount of council tax (CT) payable. Since 2013, each council is responsible for running their own local CTS schemes for help with council tax. The amount of discount awarded is based on a claimant’s savings, family make up, and income. It is paid by reducing the council tax owed and issuing a new council tax bill.
12. The law requires people to pay council tax as billed by a council even if they have applied for a discount or reduction.
13. Councils can require applicants for council tax support to supply financial information, such as proof of earnings or savings, before they can assess an application.
14. A person may appeal to a valuation tribunal if he is aggrieved by:
1. any decision of a billing authority that a dwelling is a chargeable dwelling, or that he is liable to pay council tax in respect of such a dwelling; or
2. any calculation made by such an authority of an amount which he is liable to pay to the authority in respect of council tax.

(Local Government Finance Act 2021, section 16(1) (a) and (b))

15. The conditions are that:
1. the aggrieved person is notified in writing, by the authority on which he served the notice, that the authority believes the grievance is not well founded, but the person is still aggrieved;
2. the aggrieved person is notified in writing, by the authority on which he served the notice, that steps have been taken to deal with the grievance, but the person is still aggrieved;
3. the period of two months, beginning with the date of service of the aggrieved person’s notice, has ended without his being notified under paragraph (a) or (b) above.

(Local Government Finance Act 2021, section 16(7) (a) (b) and (c))

The Council’s CTS Scheme

16. Claimants have a duty to notify the Council of any changes in their circumstances that may affect entitlement.
17. CTS should be made to the customer’s CT account for the relevant financial year unless extenuating circumstances apply.
18. Any overpayment of CTS granted to which a claimant was not entitled to receive shall be recovered by an adjustment to the CT Bill.
19. Apart from where statutorily required, advice of any CTS granted, removed or revised will be by an adjustment to the CT Bill and the bill itself will be the formal notification. The Council also reserves the right to include additional notifications informing of an award made or a non-award.
20. If claimants do not understand how the Council has made the decision on their CTS claim they can request a more detailed explanation. This must be done within one month of the date on their CT bill.
21. Claimants can challenge any decision the Council makes on their CTS claim if they think that the entitlement or the amount awarded to them is wrong.
22. The Council shall give all claimants the opportunity to make written representation where they believe their claim has been dealt with incorrectly and the Council will look at this decision again.
23. If claimants still disagree with the Council’s decision, or they have not received a response within two months of their challenge, they can appeal to an independent body called the Valuation Tribunal.
24. If the Council agrees that the claimant’s CTS is wrong, the Council will send a new bill. If the Council decides it is correct, it will contact the claimant giving a full written explanation.

What happened

25. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
26. In 2020, Mr X received council tax support (CTS).
27. In April 2021, Mr X made a new claim for CTS. Mr X indicated on the claim form that he was living with his spouse. The Council requested further information from Mr X to support his application.
28. In May 2021, Mr X submitted his supporting evidence to the Council. Mr X submitted his last two months’ payslips and confirmed his daughter moved out of his property on 15 April 2021.
29. On 13 May 2021, the Council sent Mr X his CT 2021/22 bill. This showed a Universal Credit CTS amount of £604.08 was added to Mr X’s bill.
30. In June 2021, Mr X contacted the Council. He said he believed his CT 2021/22 bill was incorrect, so he asked the Council to review his bill. Mr X explained the Council increased his bill by the CTS amount of £604.08. He said the CTS amount should have been deducted and not added to his CT bill. Mr X said the additional charges caused him some financial difficulty in paying his rent and he was concerned his financial situation would get worse with the subsequent instalment. Mr X attached a copy of his 2021/22 bill and asked the Council to make the necessary corrections to his CT account. The Council asked Mr X to provide his proof of income and passed Mr X’s query to its Benefit Services department.
31. During a telephone call, the Council told Mr X he was no longer entitled to CTS due to his excess income. The Council advised him he could apply for Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) if Mr X was struggling financially but advised it was not guaranteed. In late June 2021, the Council realised its initial advice to Mr X to apply for DHP was incorrect, so it attempted to call Mr X and left him voice messages. The Council said it explained DHP could not be considered during an ongoing recovery of a CTS overpayment. It also noted on its system that Mr X should be advised of same when next he contacted the Council. Mr X did not apply for DHP.
32. In July 2021, Mr X called the Council to discuss his CTS. The Council advised him of his excess income. He disagreed and explained his earnings had reduced. The Council asked Mr X to provide it with his proof of income. Mr X submitted his payslips to the Council and asked it to re-calculate his CT bill.
33. In September 2021, the Council responded to Mr X. It said it had checked his claim and advised him of the record of his gross and net income and his Universal Credit entitlement. It asked Mr X to confirm if the details it held on its system were incorrect. The Council did not provide Mr X with an explanation as regards his CTS concerns.
34. On 5 December 2021, the Council sent Mr X another CT 2021/22 bill. Mr X said the Council continued to add the CTS amount of £604.08 to his bill.
35. On each of the occasions Mr X submitted his review requests, the Council advised him to contact the Benefit Services instead as it was responsible for calculating CTS. Mr X contacted the Benefit Services on several occasions (December 2021, January 2022, March 2022) to question his Council Tax 2021/22 bill. Mr X attached both CT bills the Council sent to him in May and December 2021. He asked the Council to review his bill, send him a revised bill and explain what the £604.08 CTS adjustment was and why it continued to charge him the same amount. The Benefit Services maintained there was an increase in Mr X’s income, but it did not explain or resolve the CTS issues Mr X raised.
36. In March 2022, the Council issued Mr X with a court summons notice. It said Mr X’s outstanding CT amount was £409.15 plus £75 cost of summons. A total of £484.15. Mr X paid £75 for the cost of the summons but he did not attend the court. He explained this was because he kept making the outstanding payment to the Council.
37. Mr X was dissatisfied with how the Council handled his CT account and in particular his CTS concerns. He made a complaint to the Ombudsman.

The Council’s comments on the complaint

38. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained Mr X and his spouse were originally awarded CTS of £885.50 in the financial year 2020/21. It said Mr X’s total CTS amount entitlement was applied to his CT 2020/21 bill at the start of that financial year.
39. The Council further explained that from 26 July 2020 to 31 March 2021, Mr X and his spouse were no longer entitled to CTS. This was due to the information the Council received from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) about changes to Mr X’s household circumstances. DWP informed the Council that Mr X’s income had increased, his partner’s Universal Credit entitlement had decreased, and their daughter was a resident non-dependent. DWP told the Council all the changes were effective from 26 July 2020. Due to the changes, the Council said it re‑assessed their claim in August 2020 and they were no longer entitled to CTS. Mr X and his spouse were entitled to £281.42 to cover the period 1 April 2020 to 25 July 2020. This meant there was a CTS overpayment of £604.08 for the 2020/21 financial year on Mr X’s CT account (i.e., £885.50 - £281.42).
40. The Council said it failed to identify the error with Mr X’s CTS overpayment in 2020. It also failed to charge Mr X’s CT account accordingly with the 2020/21 CTS overpayment of £604.08 in the same financial year. The Council explained the error was due to its system failure and it accepted there was a delay of over 8 months in identifying and rectifying the overpayment issue (28 August 2020 to 11 May 2021). The Council explained it applied the £604.08 CTS overpayment charge to Mr X’s CT 2021/22 bill.
41. The Council said although it receives information from DWP which may sometimes be incomplete or inaccurate, taxpayers are responsible to inform the Council of any changes to their circumstances. It said Mr X did not inform it of any changes to his circumstances. It said if Mr X had done so, any error was likely to have been identified by its officers and there would have been no delay in issuing him with a revised CT bill in 2020. It also said Mr X did not contact it when he did not receive a revised bill around August and September 2020 to reflect the changes to his household circumstances in July 2020.
42. The Council confirmed it correctly charged Mr X with the £604.08 CTS overpayment charge and there was no miscalculation. But it acknowledged it should have charged Mr X and he needed to have paid the overpayment in the same financial year (2020/21) when his CTS entitlement stopped.
43. The Council also accepted it delayed issuing an explanation to Mr X from 23 July 2021 to date about why it added the £604.08 CTS overpayment to his CT 2021/22 bill.
44. The Council said it was correct to have issued Mr X with a court summons notice for the non-payment of his CT. But it acknowledged the worry and frustration caused to Mr X by its delay in clarifying matters to him. The Council confirmed it had withdrawn and refunded Mr X the £75 cost of summons.
45. The Council said the issues with the CTS entitlement error was fed back to relevant officers and managers within the service to review the matter and its process. It said the Council has taken action to reduce risk of errors reoccurring.

Analysis

46. There were some failings in how the Council handled Mr X’s CT account.
47. It took the Council nearly 9 months to identify the error with Mr X’s £604.08 CTS overpayment in the 2020/21 financial year. This was a significant delay, and it was fault. This resulted in the Council applying the overpayment adjustment to Mr X’s CT account in the subsequent financial year; 2021/22. I do not consider the Council should write off the £604.08 CTS overpayment as it is entitled to recover the overpayment from Mr X. However, I find its error and delay meant Mr X had to pay the additional charges at the same time with his 2021/22 CT bill. The Council should have applied the overpayment charge to Mr X’s account in the same financial year when the overpayment occurred. This put a financial strain on Mr X.
48. There was no evidence to show the Council informed Mr X of his £604.08 CTS overpayment in 2020 following the information it received from DWP. There was no evidence the Council sent him a revised CT bill in August 2020 or notified him in writing of the CTS adjustment to his 2020/21 CT Bill. This was fault and not in line with the Council’s CTS scheme. This denied Mr X an opportunity to understand why his CTS was revised in 2020 which meant he could not decide whether he had a grievance about the revised CTS. It also denied him his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he wished to have exercised his right.
49. There was a further delay with the Council in explaining to Mr X the reason for the CTS charge to his 2021/22 CT bill. Evidence shows the Mr X contacted the Council, raised his concerns about the CTS charge and asked for explanation on several occasions. From the available evidence, the Council repeatedly referred him to the Benefit Services, failed to appropriately explain and resolve the CTS concerns Mr X raised with it from July 2021 to date. This again was a significant delay of over a year. This was fault. It has caused Mr X distress, worry, uncertainty, frustration and the time and trouble he was put to in chasing the Council for clarification and updates on his CT account.

Back to top

Agreed action

50. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following within one month of the final decision:

• apologise in writing to Mr X and pay him £100 to acknowledge the distress, worry and frustration caused by the failure to properly manage his council tax account. This includes the significant delay in identifying and rectifying the error with his 2020/21 Council Tax Support entitlement
• pay Mr X £150 to acknowledge the distress, uncertainty, frustration and the time and trouble caused by the Council’s poor communication and failure to appropriately deal with his concerns
• provide Mr X with clear information / explanation as to why the £604.08 Council Tax Support overpayment was added to his council tax 2021/22 bill
• by training or other means remind staff of the importance of:

• managing council tax accounts in a timely and efficient manner
• ensuring it communicates effectively with taxpayers
• following the Council’s complaint handling process and procedures

• provide evidence to show the summons cost of £75 has been refunded to Mr X.

51. within two months of the final decision:

• review and ensure the Council’s communication strategy(s) is clear and effective between its various departments. For instance, between Revenue Services and Benefit Services. This is to ensure taxpayers’ concerns are dealt with appropriately, effectively and in a timely manner.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I find evidence of fault by the Council leading to injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman