Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award a council tax reduction because the complainant has used her right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. Additionally, part of the complaint is late without good reason to investigate it now. Other issues the complainant raises are not central, and do not warrant an investigation independently of the core matters.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council wrongly decided she could not receive council tax reduction (CTR) and will not allow her to reapply for retrospective council tax reduction from years 2020-2024. Mrs X also says the Council did not respond to her Freedom of Information request, and did not write to her using large print as requested.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
6. 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)
7. The Information Commissioner's Office 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

8. I considered information provided by the complainant.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. The Council said information Mrs X provided to support her claim for CTR in 2020 showed her household income exceeded the threshold for eligibility. Mrs X says this decision was wrong and stemmed from a calculation error by the Council. Mrs X has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal about this decision, so we have no power to investigate it, as paragraph 3 explained. This means we cannot consider whether the way the Council reached its decision was flawed.
11. Mrs X reapplied for the CTR scheme in May 2024, but the Council again assessed she did not meet eligibility criteria as her household income was too high. It was reasonable to expect Mrs X to exercise her right to appeal this decision at the Valuation Tribunal. The law expressly provides this route for challenging such decisions. The Valuation Tribunal has the expertise to decide the matter and the power to make a binding decision. Appealing is relatively straightforward. Mrs X has appealed before and she can ask the Tribunal for any necessary disability-related adjustments. We will not therefore investigate this.
12. Mrs X says the Council will not allow her to retrospectively reapply for CTR from 2020-2024. The Council told her in August 2023 she could not reapply and said she could complain to us. Mrs X did not complain to us until September 2024. This aspect of the complaint is therefore late, so the restriction in paragraph 6 applies. I have not seen good reason to accept this late complaint now. The Council’s decision not to allow Mrs X to reapply is reflected in council tax demands for the relevant years. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to apply against the demands. So, we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
13. Mrs X believes the Council’s failure to send her documents in large print influenced the Tribunal’s decision to not rule in her favour, as she was not able to prepare beforehand. However, this is speculative and only the Tribunal can decide what documents and information it needs to make its decision. As paragraph 10 explained, we cannot consider matters related to the Tribunal appeal. We will not investigate this element of the complaint as it relates closely to the substantive points about whether Mrs X should have received CTR, which we are not investigating. Investigating the failure to provide large-print documents in isolation would be disproportionate. Only a court can decide whether the Council has met its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
14. Mrs X says the Council did not provide her with copies of policy documents she requested under the Freedom of Information Act. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which is best placed to decide such matters. There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO, and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she has exercised her right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal regarding a CTR application made in 2020, and could reasonably have used her right of appeal in relation to the 2024 decision. In addition, some of the complaint is late without good reason to investigate it now, and the ICO is better placed to deal with complaints regarding freedom of information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman