The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the information on the Council’s website about council tax support. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
The complaint
Mr C complains information on the Council’s website led him to believe he would qualify for council tax support because he receives Personal Independence Payments. But, the Council later refused his application because his savings are too high. Mr C says he believed he was entitled to financial help which he desperately needs and the Council should accept his application which was made in good faith.
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 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 Mr C and have looked at information on the Council’s website about the Council’s council tax support policy.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into Mr C’s complaint.
The Council’s webpage for local council tax support (working age) starts with information about the eligibility criteria for claiming council tax support. The criteria include a person having less than £6,000 in savings. So, this information about savings is clearly set out on the Council’s website.
The webpage then provides more detail on the specific groups who are ‘protected’ and will receive 80% support. This list includes people who receive Personal Independence Payments.
But, this section clearly follows on from the initial information about eligibility criteria. The sections must be read together and not in isolation.
I find the information on the Council’s website is not unclear or misleading.
If Mr C considers the Council’s decision on his claim was wrong he would need to challenge this decision by putting in an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman