Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

Maidstone Borough Council

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Upheld Reference 22-006-469 Sector Benefits And Tax Category Council Tax Decided 12 September 2022

View Maidstone Borough Council scorecard

Full decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about money taken from the complainant’s bank account in error, by the Council, for council tax. This is because the Council provided an appropriate response and there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council took money from his bank account. He wants compensation.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or the Council has provided a proportionate response.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

How I considered this complaint

I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

My assessment

Mr X says the Council took £335 from his account, in error, on 28 June and a further £1848 on 7 July (total of £2183) for council tax.

The Council apologised and agreed it took both payments in errors. It explained it had been too late to stop the June payment and it still took the July payment even though it had cancelled the payment plan. The Council told Mr X he could reclaim the money through his bank. It then refunded £2183 on 8 July without knowing Mr X had made a claim through his bank. The Council then made a second refund of £2183 in response to the claim through the bank. Mr X denies he made a claim through his bank.

The Council declined to pay compensation because it made a prompt refund and Mr X has not suffered a financial loss.

I will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided an appropriate response and there is insufficient evidence of injustice. The Council made a prompt refund, explained what had gone wrong and apologised; there is nothing more we would ask it to do. I appreciate Mr X has been caused some inconvenience and was distressed by the deduction of a large sum from his account. But, he did not incur any bank charges, the money was quickly returned and, if he had not requested a refund through his bank, he could have returned the second refund to the Council. An investigation may have been appropriate if the erroneous deduction had led to bank charges or if the Council had taken a long time to refund the money – but this is not the case.

Final decision

We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a proportionate response and there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving Maidstone Borough Council

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-019-245 Other
25-022-704 Other
25-010-280 Other
24-022-332 05 Jan 2026 Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to process his planning application properly, causing delay, distress and financial loss. We … Upheld
25-010-250 17 Dec 2025 Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Council tax arrears. We are satisfied with the action the Council … Other
View all decisions for this organisation