Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not awarded full council tax support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, disagrees with the Council’s decision not to award full council tax support (CTS).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally 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)
4. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses and CTS decision letters. I considered the CTS policy and comments Mrs X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

CTS policy

6. CTS helps people pay their council tax. For people of working age the maximum CTS that someone can receive is based on 85% of their council tax liability. This means that someone getting maximum CTS will still have to pay 15% of their council tax. This applies to all working age claimants even if they are not working.
7. When the claimant becomes 66 years old the CTS can cover 100% of their council tax. This means that someone getting full CTS would not pay any council tax.

What happened

8. The Council awarded maximum CTS to Mrs X. Mrs X still has to pay 15% of the council tax because she is of working age. The CTS is based on 85% of Mrs X’s council tax.
9. Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision that she must pay 15% of her council tax. She wants the Council to award full CTS so that 100% of the council tax is covered by CTS. She says that in 2017/18 the Council awarded CTS based on 100% of the council tax liability.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation for following reasons.
11. The Council has awarded full CTS on 85% of Mrs X’s council tax liability. This decision is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
12. I asked the Council how much CTS Mrs X received in 2017/18. The Council confirmed Mrs X received CTS based on 85% of the liability (liability was £1200 and the CTS was based on a liability of £1020).
13. Mrs X could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal if she did not think the Council had correctly assessed her CTS claim. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to have appealed because the tribunal is the appropriate body to decide if the Council has correctly assessed the CTS claim. However, the tribunal cannot overturn the CTS policy which says that working age people must pay at least 15% of the council tax. The tribunal can only decide if the Council has correctly assessed the CTS claim in relation to the CTS policy.
14. Mrs X says the Council did not tell her she could appeal. However, the CTS decision letters explained her appeal rights. Mrs X has also had a housing benefit dispute and says she was not told she could appeal. But, again, the decision letters explained her appeal rights.
15. Neither the Ombudsman nor the Valuation Tribunal can change the CTS rules. If Mrs X disagrees with the policy that all working age people must pay at least 15% of their council tax she would need to lobby her local councillors for a change in the CTS policy.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Mrs X could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman