Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the annual reassessment of the complainant’s council tax support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the way the Council handled the annual reassessment of his council tax support (CTS). He says the Council lost a letter.

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 the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. CTS helps people pay their council tax; the Council reduces the council tax by the amount of CTS awarded. CTS is means-tested. Claimants must report all changes in their income so that the Council can award the correct amount of CTS.

What happened

5. Mr X receives CTS. In April he took a letter to the Council which showed that his pension had increased. The Council scanned the letter and returned it to him. Unfortunately the letter did not scan correctly. Neither Mr X nor the Council were aware of this problem.
6. The Council sent Mr X a letter asking for evidence of his increased pension award. Mr X then entered into a period of correspondence with the Council when he explained he had already provided proof of his pension. He also complained about the Council’s responses and lack of response.
7. The Council explained that his letter had not been scanned properly. It said the data would be held in the system until it was automatically deleted. The Council said it could have apologised, in its earlier letters, for the problems Mr X was experiencing with updating his claim.
8. On 24 May Mr X received an amended council tax bill with the updated CTS award. The Council told Mr X it had used the percentage increase, for the pension, that Mr X had declared in April.
9. Mr X is dissatisfied with the way the Council handled his claim and he wants the Ombudsman to impose a heavy fine.

Assessment

10. The updating of Mr X’s CTS did not go as smoothly as it could have done. There was a scanning problem which meant that officers were unaware that Mr X had provided proof of his pension. This led to officers asking Mr X for information he had already provided. There was then a period of about a month when both sides were trying to get the situation resolved. Mr X was caused some frustration and inconvenience but he has not been caused an injustice which requires an investigation by the Ombudsman. There is no evidence Mr X has suffered a significant financial loss and his CTS and council tax were corrected by mid-May.
11. The Ombudsman does not impose fines. His role is to remedy injustice caused by fault. In this case, as I have said above, there is not enough injustice to require a remedy or an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman