The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has dealt with a discount on council tax. This is mainly because the person affected has a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal about the Council’s decisions.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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, for example, 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)) The law says we normally cannot investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and entitlement to discounts.
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information Mrs X provided with her complaint. I also considered Mrs X’s comments on the telephone and by email in response to my initial views in her case. In addition, I took account of information from the Council about its handling of Mrs X’s council tax account and complaint.
My Assessment
However, having reviewed all of the information provided in Mrs X’s case, I do not see we should investigate her complaint.
In particular, councils’ decisions about entitlement to SPD’s are appealable to the Valuation Tribunal. The Valuation Tribunal is an independent appeal body which Parliament has set up to rule on disputed council tax decisions, and there is no charge for going to it. We have no remit to make decisions about council tax liability and discounts ourselves. So, where there is a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal we normally expect people to use that right, unless it is unreasonable for them to do so.
Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision that she has had no entitlement to a SPD in recent years, and she believes it should accept the evidence she has provided to the contrary. But the Valuation Tribunal can consider these matters if she cannot resolve this dispute. The Council has recently issued a final decision letter informing Mrs X about her appeal rights. In the circumstances, I consider it is reasonable to expect her to go to the Valuation Tribunal.
I have also looked at whether there was fault by the Council in other respects which may have caused Mrs X any substantive disadvantage.
First, Mrs X said she returned a form to the Council’s Electoral Services department a few years ago which included Ms Y as a resident at her property. Mrs X said the form stated that the information would be shared with other Council departments. Therefore, she felt the Revenues & Benefits Service should have acted on that information with regard to her council tax account.
However, I have not seen evidence of the form in question. In addition, the Council said it had no knowledge of the form and it was not its practice to share information in this way. In the circumstances, and on balance, I do not see we have enough evidence to justify finding fault with the Council in this respect.
I also note that council taxpayers have a duty to notify the Council of any changes in circumstances affecting entitlement to a discount. So, I consider it reasonable for the Council to expect Mrs X to have contacted it if she received subsequent bills showing a SPD she was not entitled to.
Mrs X is also unhappy the Council took payments from her bank account between January and April 2022 without warning and even though she had queried its recent council tax demands by then.
However, I note the revised bills the Council issued to Mrs X in January 2022 made clear that new payments under the existing direct debit arrangement would be starting. I consider the Council was, therefore, entitled to take those payments until Mrs X later cancelled the direct debit.
I also note there is no obligation on a council to suspend collection of council tax as billed just because of an outstanding dispute over liability, or even where an appeal to the Tribunal is pending. In the circumstances I do not see we would have grounds to fault the Council for not necessarily stopping collections from Mrs X’s bank account once she started querying its new bills in February.
I consider the Council was at fault for failing to act on Mrs X’s email in reply to the SPD review letter it sent her in October 2021. But I am not convinced we could say the outcome in Mrs X’s case would have been significantly different if the Council had responded properly at that time.
In particular, Mrs X and the Council have evidently reached a stalemate regarding the SPD issue, with Mrs X claiming she has provided enough information to establish her entitlement and the Council saying it still needs more evidence. In the circumstances, I do not see we could justifiably suggest that the Council would not have issued new bills and taken payments, or that the current stalemate could have been avoided, if only it had replied to Mrs X’s email in November 2021. As a result, I consider the Council’s apology for its failure to respond is a sufficient remedy in this respect.
Therefore, now that the Council has sent Mrs X a final decision letter about her entitlement to a SPD informing her about her right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal, I consider we have no reason to pursue her complaint any further.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to withdraw a single person discount on her council tax account. This is mainly because Mrs X has a right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal she can use concerning this matter.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman