The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax handling. There is not enough evidence of fault regarding the majority of complaints Mr X raised to warrant investigation. The Council has taken suitable action to remedy the injustice from one fault.
The complaint
Mr X complains on behalf of his brother Mr Y, that the Council failed to provide correct council tax bills or account references for two properties his brother owns. He says the Council delayed, confused the two properties and gave contradictory information. The Council then issued a summons and took enforcement action while he was complaining.
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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended).
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
The Council replied it did not agree that it was responsible for the confusion regarding the two properties. It said it had received incorrect landlord details from the tenants when they moved out of flat B. This led to a delay in issuing a bill to Mr Y.
it received conflicting information from Mr X and the tenants regarding the date they moved out and the date he moved in. It asked Mr X for information and evidence to verify this, but it had not received it.
Mr X had advised a tenant had moved out of flat A when they had not moved. They moved out at a later date.
The Council did not agree it had delayed responding to Mr X. It noted he said communication regarding council tax was inaccessible, but it said that the bills issued to Mr Y explained how he could register to view his account or he could have called the Council.
The Council said it had issued a summons due to not receiving payments for flat B. It had adjourned the liability order hearing twice. However, it accepted it had not given enough time for a response to an email sent the day before the liability order hearing. The Council agreed to remove the costs of £15.
We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council regarding the issues of delay, confusion and inaccessible communication to warrant investigation. The Council has taken suitable action to remedy the injustice due to not giving enough time to respond before the liability order hearing.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s main complaints because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. The Council has taken satisfactory action to remedy the injustice from one fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman