The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax liability as Mr X can appeal against it to the Valuation Tribunal.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council charged him too much council tax as it did not apply a single person discount to the account, and sent him reminder letters for non-payment, threatening further action. Mr X wants the account to be corrected.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Valuation Tribunal (VT) is the independent body which hears appeals about council tax liability. It can decide what a person’s liability should be. We are not empowered to do this. It is reasonable therefore to expect Mr X to appeal to the VT against the Council’s decision.
The Council is entitled to send reminder letters when payments are not made for council tax. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in this regard to justify our further involvement.
For these reasons, we will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he can appeal to the VT if he considers the amount the Council has charged him is wrong.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman