Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a misleading council tax demand. There is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused any significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council sending him a council tax demand in July 2024 which said he owed £0.00 on his account and for the rest of the year. He received a reminder for non-payment of council tax over £300 in November for an amount which he says was unexplained. He was dissatisfied with the Council’s billing process and says the investigation into his complaint was poor.

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 or continue 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 the complainant and the Council’s response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he received a council tax bill in July 2024 with a nil amount to be paid and an nil balance for the rest of the year. In November he received a council tax reminder for over £300 without any detailed explanation what the charge was for. He queried the bill and the Council informed him that the original demand was zero because he benefitted for a 100% exemption from the empty council tax rate for the first month. After July 29 he became liable for the empty rate.
6. The Council sent him an amended demand on 29 July explaining the reasons for the change in his liability and how much was now due and for the rest of the year. Mr X says he never received this demand. The Council sent Mr X a duplicate of the letter and also changed the amount due again as he had now had a further change of circumstances.
7. Mr X was dissatisfied with the Council’s explanation and made a formal complaint.
8. Councils as billing authorities are required to issue demands for council tax by post and the demand will show a snapshot of the resident’s account at that time. The first bill confirmed Mr X was benefitting from 100% discount and so there was nothing to pay. The latter did advise that the discount only applied for a maximum of one month. Because the Council did not know when the bill was issued what changes may apply in future the balance at the time of issue for the rest of the year was zero.
9. Because Mr X did not receive the second demand a reminder was issued as required by the regulations. There is no evidence to suggest that the liability which Mr X was notified about was incorrect. It is unfortunate that he did not receive the second demand but this was not due to fault by the Council. The way the Council issued the demands is no different to that issue by other billing authorities.
10. The Council told Mr X it would seek to make the reasons for the demands clearer in future but I do not consider that this was the reason for Mr X’s confusion. Had the second demand been received he would have understood the reasons for the change on his account and could have quired the liability with the Council had he not done so. If he disputed the charge he had a right to challenge this by appealing to the Valuation Tribunal.
11. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter. In this case Mr X did not incur any summons or court costs so there was not sufficient injustice to warrant further consideration.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a misleading council tax demand. There is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused any significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman