Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay by the Council in reassessing the complainant’s Council Tax Reduction. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice and because the complainant could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says he has acted honestly regarding his Council Tax Reduction (CTR) but the Council has treated him like a criminal. Mr X wants an assessment of his bill and compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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)
4. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X became unemployed in late 2023. He applied for CTR which the Council awarded. CTR helps people pay their council tax. People who receive CTR are required to report changes in their circumstances which could affect their award.
7. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) sends regular updates to councils about people’s circumstances.
8. Mr X started work in January. He told the Council about his new job in March.
9. In April the Council issued an adjusted bill which showed that Mr X received CTR for the period he was unemployed. The Council did not adjust the bill until March/April which meant Mr X owed council tax from when he returned to work.
10. Mr X complained and said he had acted correctly by reporting that he had returned to work. He said the Council had treated him badly.
11. The Council apologised because it had delayed acted on information from the DWP about Mr X’s circumstances. It said officers had tried to call him to discuss the adjusted bill. It explained he can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he disagrees with the revised bill. The Council said the apology and attempts to discuss payment with Mr X was an adequate response.
12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice and there is nothing to suggest the Council has accused Mr X of being a criminal. The Council has apologised for a delay in processing the information from the DWP but, equally, while Mr X started work in January he says he did not tell the Council until March. It is possible that if Mr X had reported the change as soon as he started his new job the Council might have issued a revised bill more quickly. Further, as Mr X knew he needed to apply for CTR when he became unemployed, it is reasonable to expect he would know that his council tax was likely to increase as soon as he started work and, pending receipt of a new bill, he could have put money aside to cover the council tax.
13. In addition, if Mr X does not think the Council has awarded the correct amount of CTR he can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. It is reasonable to expect him to appeal because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider CTR disputes.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice and because Mr X could appeal to the tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman