Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his application for council tax reduction and its council tax policy. The Council has granted Mr X benefit from the start of his tenancy. It has apologised for its errors and there is no injustice.

The complaint

1. Complaint 1: Mr X complains the Council delayed and discriminated against him when assessing his application for council tax support. Mr X complains about how the Council handled his request to back date his claim. He says it should not be able to refuse a person benefit regardless of when the benefit is applied for. He says the Council’s administration of the scheme causes debt. He says the Council caused him distress and upset.
2. Complaint 2: Mr X complains the Council’s council tax scheme is contrary to discrimination, equality and human rights law. He says the scheme should reduce inequality.
3. Complaint 3: Mr X complains about how the Council handled personal data including requesting details from him about his landlord.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
5. 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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered Mr X’s information, comments and reply to my draft decision statement. I have considered the Council’s detailed communication with him dated 14 June 2019 (complaint reply and review of benefit decision) and the final complaint reply.

Back to top

What I found

8. On 27 November 2018 Mr X contacted the Council and informed it that he had moved into a property. On 4 February Mr X applied for council tax reduction and requested backdating. On 11 March the Council awarded benefit backdated to 27 November. In June the Council backdated the claim to 20 October when Mr X became responsible for the council tax. This followed Mr X’s request for a review and complaint. Mr X provided new information about his health.
9. The Council has apologised to Mr X for the delay in handling his claim due to a backlog. It says it could have handled his case better. It did not reply to his November contact until mid-January and failed to advise him he needed to provide an application form. The Council has explained why it asked Mr X for information about his landlord. The Council does not accept there was discrimination and says it asked Mr X to explain why he had delayed in contacting it after he moved in. Once he explained his position it further backdated benefit. It says it has acted to reduce the backlog and improve response times.
10. The Local Government Act 1992, section 66 (as amended by the 2012 Act), says a council tax reduction scheme can not be questioned except by an application to court for judicial review.
11. Mr X’s says, in his reply to my draft decision, that he is representative of a class of people and there is a big impact financially if a month of benefit is lost. He says his complaint is about discrimination and no other group of people is penalised to such a degree as the group he is in. He says a loss of benefit is a violation of human rights law. Mr X says he did not know that he had to provide an application for benefit to the Council. He says the Council does not have a robust complaints procedure and there were multiple violations of the employee code of conduct.

Analysis

12. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
13. Complaint 1: The Council has awarded Mr X council tax benefit and backdated it to the start of his tenancy. That resolves the matter and there is no continuing injustice. Had the Council not done so Mr X would have needed to use his right of appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.
14. The Council has explained in detail how it handled Mr X’s claim, apologised for its errors and indicated it is acting to reduce its backlog. Investigation will not add to that response. In reaching that view I have considered the Council’s administrative actions including its complaint reply and review of its benefit decision. A claim of unlawful discrimination or breach of human rights is a matter for a court.
15. Complaint 2: The Ombudsman cannot investigate the Council’s scheme for council tax reduction which can only be challenged at court (see paragraph 10 above).
16. Complaint 3: Mr X has indicated that he will go to the Information Commissioner about his data protection concerns. I consider it reasonable for him to do so if he wishes to pursue the matter. There is no fault in the Council seeking details from Mr X about his landlord. A council should verify the details of a tenancy and the legitimacy of a claim. I have not seen evidence that its handling of personal information caused Mr X injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his application for council tax reduction and its council tax policy. The Council has granted Mr X benefit from the start of his tenancy. It has apologised for its errors and there is no injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman