Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council tax refund because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council took a direct debit payment for council tax after he had reported he had moved. He also complains the Council delayed providing information about the direct debit guarantee. Mr X would like the Council to pay 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. 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

4. On 10 October Mr X reported he had moved. Despite this the Council took a council tax payment on 1 November by direct debit. It refunded the money on 3 December. Mr X complained on 1 November and said he could not use the direct debit guarantee in case it affected his credit rating.
5. In response the Council said the council tax system was suspended from late October to mid-November because it had to merge four databases. It said the quickest way to get a refund was to use the direct debit guarantee. In a subsequent reply it said council tax does not affect credit ratings and it apologised for the delay in updating Mr X’s account and issuing the refund.
6. Mr X says it should not have taken so long to merge the systems. He also says the Council delayed telling him his credit rating would not be affected. Mr X wants compensation for the delay in receiving the refund of £359.
7. The Council told me it could not update Mr X’s change of circumstances until after the merger and it had to run the direct debit requests early. This meant the direct debit due on 1 November was still live and was taken.
8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice. The Council had to suspend the system to merge four databases; this meant there was a delay in processing Mr X’s report and meant it could not prevent the direct debit being taken. I acknowledge Mr X’s opinion that the merger should not have taken that long but, given the complexity of council tax, I do not regard the suspension period as excessive. And, as an extension to this, I do not regard the payment on 1 November as fault.
9. The payment was taken on 1 November and refunded on 3 December. Even if the refund process was not affected by a suspension, this is not a period of time that amounts to fault or a period for which we would ask a council to pay compensation.
10. On 1 November Mr X referred to his credit rating and says the Council delayed telling him it would not be affected. He says he would have used the direct debit guarantee if he had known. The Council could have explained this when it responded to the complaint on 11 November but the potential delay arising from this does not represent a degree of injustice requiring an investigation; this is because Mr X received the refund in early December.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman