Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s handling of an application for council tax reduction. Although the process was complicated in the complainant’s case, this was largely because of circumstances beyond the Council’s control. The Council was at fault, however, for wrongly inviting the complainant to make an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal, which the Tribunal had no power to hear. This did not cause the complainant an injustice, but the Council has agreed to take steps to avoids a similar fault in future.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mrs F.
2. Mrs F complains about the Council’s handling of her application for council tax reduction (CTR). In particular, she says:

• the process was unnecessarily complex, and the Council caused her confusion by frequently sending letters, with multiple letters arriving on the same day on some occasions;
• the Council has refused to backdate her CTR for more than one month before it received her application.

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 question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed the various council tax bills and related documents the Council issued to Mrs F, along with her complaint and the Council’s response.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mrs F complained to the Council about her CTR application in June 2020. In her complaint, she set out a detailed chronology of the events over the previous year. The Council responded to Mrs F’s complaint in August, and provided its own comments to each entry in Mrs F’s chronology, to explain what had happened.
8. As this provides a very clear explanation of their respective positions, I will replicate Mrs F’s chronology and the Council’s responses here. However, in the interests of brevity, I will omit some entries which appear less significant.
9. In July 2019, Mrs F received a council tax (CT) payment card. The Council explained she had become liable to pay CT in May, because her studies had ended, but as her initial direct debit had failed, the Council had sent the card for her to arrange payment.
10. A week later, Mrs F received a CT bill for the 2019/20 tax year. The Council explained it had rearranged Mrs F’s payments so her first instalment was due on 22 September, to allow her the opportunity to apply for CTR, as she had requested. It said it had a duty to issue a new bill under such circumstances.
11. On 17 July, Mrs F began an online application for CTR. Due to illness, she could not complete the process at that time.
12. Mrs F completed her application in October. She requested that CTR be backdated to 17 July because of her medical circumstances. The system would not allow her to upload copies of her ID documents, so she had to attend the Council offices a few days later to do so. The Council said it required ID documents to be originals, and so they could not be uploaded, but it had since changed its system.
13. The Council then emailed and wrote to Mrs F on 22 October, to request she provide evidence of her receipt of Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB). The Council explained it could verify some benefits automatically with the DWP, but not IIDB, and so it needed documentary evidence from Mrs F. She provided this by email on 29 October.
14. On 8 November, Mrs F received five different letters from the Council about her CT, all dated 31 October. The Council explained these were:

• an updated CT bill;
• a letter confirming her award of CTR;
• a letter confirming her CTR had been backdated by one month to September;
• a letter refusing her application to backdate the CTR to July, as the Council’s policy only allows one month;
• a general letter of acknowledgement to her email of 29 October.

It acknowledged this was confusing, but the Council said it was legally required to send separate letters, and its system did not allow it to combine them in the same envelope.

15. Mrs F then contacted her MP. On 22 November, she received four letters about her CT from the Council, including its response to her MP. The Council replied that it had reviewed Mrs F’s CT account on receipt of her MP’s letter, and decided she was due a 25% reduction in her CT liability because she cared for her daughter. This meant the Council needed to send another updated CT bill and a decision notice, along with a direct debit mandate, as Mrs F had asked to pay this way.
16. In January 2020, Mrs F received letters explaining her CTR award was being reviewed, and then later, asking her again to provide evidence she was in receipt of IIDB. Mrs F complained about this, and said she had not asked for evidence of other benefits. The Council explained this was part of its annual review process, and reiterated it could not automatically verify IIDB and so needed evidence from Mrs F. However, the Council accepted it had been unnecessary to review this evidence again after only three months, and apologised.
17. On 12 February, Mrs F says she received a CT reminder letter. The Council said this was because she had not paid her instalments from January or February, after the latest revised bill had been issued in November. Later in February Mrs F had further correspondence with her MP about its contact with the Council.
18. On 23 February, Mrs F received a letter from the Council which said CTR had been reviewed and revised. The Council explained this was a confirmation of the CTR award for the coming year, “pending any information” it had requested from Mrs F.
19. On 2 March, Mrs F’s MP forwarded to her a copy of a letter from the Council. The Council’s letter said it had attached a copy of its CTR policy, and an extract from the policy about backdating claims, but Mrs F said there were no such attachments. The Council replied that it had attached the documents when it wrote to the MP, but it appeared the MP had not forwarded them to Mrs F. It said it would arrange to send Mrs F copies now if she still wanted them.
20. On 13 March, Mrs F received two letters from the Council. One was a CT bill for the 2020/21 tax year, and the other was a request for documentation. The Council explained it was statutorily required to issue the bill, and the other letter was to remind Mrs F to provide the information about her IIDB.
21. On 18 March, Mrs F received a letter to say her CTR award had been suspended because she had not provided evidence about her IIDB. The Council acknowledged again it should not have asked her to provide this information.
22. On 11 May, Mrs F received three letters from the Council. These were revised CT bills for 2019/20 and 2020/21 and a letter confirming her CTR award had been cancelled. The Council explained it was obliged to send these letters because of the cancellation of Mrs F’s CTR.
23. At the end of the chronology section, Mrs F submitted more information as part of her complaint. She explained the benefits she was receiving, or in one case appealing a decision to refuse, and that she was a carer for her disabled daughter. Mrs F also explained she had experienced problems applying for Universal Credit, and while this was in the process of being resolved she was still waiting to receive her first payment. She said she had no savings.
24. To resolve her complaint, Mrs F asked the Council to take several actions. First, she again asked the Council to backdate her CTR to July 2019. She said the Council had not asked for information about her medical circumstances, and questioned how it could fairly judge whether she had good reasons for the delay in her application.
25. In response, the Council said it did not dispute Mrs F had good reasons for her delayed application, but its policy allowed only one month of backdating. It explained Council officers had no power to disapply this policy. However, it said it could consider making an award of Exceptional Hardship for the period between July and September 2019, if Mrs F provided evidence to support her representations about the delay.
26. Second, Mrs F asked the Council to make a substantial discretionary reduction in her outstanding CT bills, due to financial hardship because of the problems with her Universal Credit, and the loss of another benefit in May.
27. In response, the Council said it had reinstated Mrs F’s CTR claim, active from 16 March, and had reassessed Mrs F’s situation again. The Council said she qualified for a 90% CTR between September 2019 and May 2020, but due to the award of Universal Credit in May, her income was now too high to qualify for CTR.
28. Third, Mrs F asked the Council to correct her 2019/20 CT bill, to show her student exemption ended on 20 May 2019, not 17 May. In response the Council said the information it had from Mrs F’s university showed her course ended on 17 May, and was therefore satisfied the bill was correct.
29. Fourth, Mrs F asked for a clear breakdown of all application CT reductions and discounts. The Council said it would send be sending fresh documents in line with its most recent reassessment.
30. Fifth, Mrs F asked the Council for a £300 remedy to address the “continuous problems [the Council] created”. The Council declined this request but apologised for any confusion or distress it had caused.
31. In closing, Mrs F reiterated the difficulties she had encountered applying for CTR and the time and trouble she had been to in resolving matters. In response, the Council said it continually sought to improve its services, but explained that CTR is a complex area, and that the Council was under a number of legal constraints, including the amount of documentation it was required to send.
32. Mrs F suggested the Council initiate a survey among CT payers to help improve its service. The Council said it could not commit resources to a survey, but assured Mrs F it valued feedback.
33. The Council said it hoped Mrs F was satisfied with its response and was now in a position to set up a direct debit to pay her CT. It referred Mrs F to the Ombudsman if she wished to pursue her complaint further.
34. Mrs F complained to the Ombudsman on 16 December.

Back to top

Legislative background

Council tax reduction

35. CTR is a benefit which people who have low or no income (and less than £16,000 in savings) can claim to reduce their council tax payments. It is sometimes called ‘council tax support’.
36. If the applicant does not agree with the Council’s decision, whether their claim is rejected or they do not believe they have been given the correct amount of discount, they can appeal the Council’s decision to the Valuation Tribunal.

Back to top

Analysis

37. I will address each point of Mrs F’s complaint in turn.

General complexity and confusion of the CTR application process

38. The chronology Mrs F provided as part of her complaint illustrates well that the CTR application process was lengthy and convoluted in her case. And I note there were several dates where Mrs F received multiple letters from the Council, which I can appreciate was confusing.
39. From a general point of view, however, I am not persuaded this can fairly be blamed on the Council.
40. First, it was necessary for the Council to gather evidence from Mrs F in support of her claim. It has explained that, at the time, it required some of this evidence – Mrs F’s identity documents – to be submitted in its original form, which meant she could not upload these documents alongside her other evidence. I can see this was inconvenient, but the Council was entitled to decide what evidence it requires, and in what format. This was not fault; and in any event, it only delayed the process by a few days.
41. The Council has also explained that, unlike other common benefits, it cannot automatically verify the receipt of IIDB payments with the DWP. This meant it required Mrs F to provide documentary evidence of this herself. This is unfortunate, but there is nothing to suggest it is because of fault by the Council.
42. I do note the Council’s own criticism of the fact it requested this evidence again three months later, which I will consider presently; but I see no reason to criticise the Council for the simple fact it needed Mrs F to provide the evidence in the first place.
43. Second, although there were several dates where Mrs F received multiple letters from the Council, it does not appear these were superfluous. As the Council says, it is required by law to send (for example) a new CT bill whenever an adjustment is made. Where, as in Mrs F’s case, there are several adjustments over a short period of time, this unfortunately means the taxpayer will receive a series of bills, each superseding the previous one. While this may be confusing, it is again not because of a fault by the Council, and so not something I can criticise it for.
44. The same is true for the various other letters Mrs F received, such as those explaining her application for CTR had been successful, then later that it had been suspended / cancelled. Each letter was triggered by a decision the Council had made, and was required to notify Mrs F about. There is no fault here.
45. There is one exception to this, which relates to the fact the Council sent two separate letters to explain its decision on Mrs F’s application for backdating. However, I consider this sits more logically alongside my consideration of the backdating decision itself, which will be in the next section.
46. With regard to the Council’s second request to see evidence about Mrs F’s IIDB, as I have said, the Council now acknowledges this was unnecessary, as it had only been three months since she had provided it the first time. And, when Mrs F did not comply with this request, it then cancelled her claim.
47. I have weighed carefully whether to make a finding of fault here. On the simple facts, and as the Council says, I agree it appears unnecessary to review the evidence again after only three months. Had the particulars of Mrs F’s case been considered more carefully at the time, the Council may not have made the request.
48. However, I am also conscious Mrs F did not respond to the Council’s request, even just to query it. Nor does it appear she responded to the Council’s reminder letter; nor even the letter informing her that her claim had been suspended because of the failure to provide evidence.
49. Ultimately, there is no rule which says the Council cannot request further copies of evidence in support of a CTR claim after only three months. It would have been better if it had not done so, in this case, but I am not persuaded this is so serious an error it amounts to fault. The Council had not asked Mrs F to do anything particularly onerous – the request letter explained she needed only to upload copies of the evidence to the Council’s website.
50. Nor can I perceive what steps the Council could reasonably take to avoid the same problem in the future. A decision not to request further evidence must be made on a case-by-case basis, and so there is no obvious benchmark or threshold I could recommend the Council apply here. In other circumstances it may be entirely appropriate for the Council to request evidence again after only a short period of time.
51. I also cannot overlook the fact the Council gave Mrs F several opportunities to either comply with the request, or at least query it, before cancelling her claim; so I am satisfied she could have avoided this by being more proactive. And the Council then reinstated the claim retrospectively, once Mrs F had made her complaint. Even if I were to find fault here, therefore, I would not consider Mrs F had suffered an injustice.
52. Taking this all together, I find no fault on this element of Mrs F’s complaint.

Refusal to backdate CTR by more than one month

53. Mrs F complains the Council has refused to backdate her CTR eligibility to June 2019, when she first began the application process. Rather it has backdated her eligibility only by one month, to September 2019. The Council says this is the maximum its policy allows.
54. The Council is entitled to decide its own CTR policy, and this includes setting a limit on how far it will backdate a successful application. The Ombudsman cannot make this decision on the Council’s behalf, and, provided the Council applies its policy correctly and consistently, we have no grounds to criticise it. I cannot find fault simply because Mrs F’s disagrees with the Council’s policy.
55. I note also that the Council suggested to Mrs F she apply for a discretionary exceptional hardship, if she was able to provide further evidence about the reasons for her delay in applying. As far I can see Mrs F did not do this; but either way, this was good practice.
56. However, on 31 October 2019, the Council sent two decision letters to Mrs F to explain its decision about backdating. The first said her application was successful, as it had accepted she had good reasons to apply late; the second said her application was unsuccessful, because it could not backdate as far as she had requested. The Council explained it needed to write two separate letters, because the ‘unsuccessful’ decision carried a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal (VT).
57. But, in Mrs F’s case, this was incorrect. While the VT can hear appeals about CTR backdating, it also cannot question a lawful Council policy. And, because the Council had already agreed to backdate Mrs F’s CTR as far its policy allowed, there was nothing for the VT to consider. It could only have heard an appeal if the Council had (for example) decided to backdate only for two weeks, when the policy allowed for a month; or if it had refused Mrs F’s application entirely.
58. The Council therefore wrongly signposted Mrs F to the VT, which was fault. This being the case, it also appears it was not necessary for it to have written two separate letters to her about its decision.
59. I do not consider this fault caused Mrs F a substantive injustice. Mrs F has not said she tried to make an appeal to the VT, and so she was not put to any unnecessary time and trouble here. And, while I accept, in this instance, it was not necessary for the Council to write separate letters, in isolation this represents only a very minor inconvenience.
60. But it remains possible the Council’s fault will affect others, and so it should commit to ensuring its decision letters are accurate. I make a recommendation to this effect.

Back to top

Agreed action

61. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• remind relevant staff of the circumstances under which the Valuation Tribunal can hear an appeal about decisions not to backdate council tax reduction; and
• amend any standard letter templates, and similar literature, to the same effect.

Back to top

Final decision

62. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault which did not cause injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman