Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to exercise discretion to reduce Miss X’s council tax debt. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council refused to exercise discretion to reduce her council tax debt. She also complains the Council failed to take appropriate steps to support her to help her work out whether she was eligible for council tax reduction in 2019.
2. Miss X is represented by Ms A.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X’s council tax account was opened in March 2018.
8. A person can apply for a discount on their Council Tax bill if they are severely mentally impaired (SMI). If the person lives on their own and qualifies as SMI, they will get a 100% discount. Miss X qualified as SMI and lived on her own. This meant from June 2019, she did not have to pay any council tax.
9. Both the Council and Ms A agreed the only financial years Miss X was liable for council tax was 20 March 2018 to 31 March 2019, and 1 April 2019 to 16 June 2019. For both these financial years, the Council said it could not determine if Miss X was eligible for any council tax reduction. This was because Miss X did not provide it with information to allow it to determine what her income was.
10. However, the Council did agree to waive the fees incurred from the Council obtaining liability orders in 2019. The Council explained it waived these fees as, if it had been made fully aware of the details of Miss X’s situation in 2019, it may have paused recovery action.
11. The Council outlined in its final complaint response letter that the total council tax debt owed by Miss X (as of October 2022) was just over £262. Ms A, in her complaint letter dated October 2022, noted she had worked out Miss X’s council tax debt to be just over £276. It is clear there is only a small discrepancy in the figures. In any case, the Council’s figure is less than what Ms A had calculated.
12. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are unlikely to find fault. This is because the Council has explained why it cannot calculate Miss X’s eligibility for council tax reduction for the financial years March 2018 to March 2019 and April 2019 to June 2019. It is open to Miss X to provide the information to the Council to enable it to review its decision.
13. Miss X asked the Council to exercise discretion to reduce her debt. Just because it has been requested does not mean the Council has to agree to the request. The Council has shown it considered Miss X request and the reasons for why she feels the Council should waive her debt. The Council decided it could not exercise discretion to award this. While I note Miss X’s disappointment with the decision, this was a decision the Council was entitled to make. We cannot find fault with the decision itself if there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the Council made its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman