Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to pay the complainant’s council tax support into the council tax account. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains that the Council paid her council tax support (CTS) into the council tax account. Ms X wants the Council to pay it to her.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

4. CTS is money awarded by the Council to reduce someone’s council tax liability. It is basically a means tested benefit. CTS is never paid directly to the claimant. CTS is always paid into the council tax account to reduce the council tax. A joint tenant, or someone who lives in a property, may be liable to pay council tax and claim CTS.
5. If more than one person is liable for council tax then they must all give consent for a refund to be made. The Council can make a refund if the council tax account is in credit. The refund can only be the amount of the credit.

What happened

6. Ms X moved into a property in July 2018. Mr Y had been living in the property for some time and was liable for council tax. Ms X was a joint tenant from July 2018. Ms X was disregarded for council tax purposes until 30 October because she was a student.
7. Ms X claimed CTS on 24 December. The Council processed the claim on 5 March and awarded CTS of £226 from 30 October until 7 March. It paid the CTS into the council tax account. Ms X moved out on 7 March. She asked the Council to send her a cheque for the CTS. In response the Council explained it had paid the CTS into the council tax account and it cannot pay CTS direct to an individual.
8. Ms X says the Council is benefitting from money that was awarded to her. She says she had to borrow money to pay the council tax. She wants the Council to pay her the CTS. She says the Council failed to name her on the council tax account as a liable person.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. CTS is a sum of money which, if awarded, reduces the amount of council tax payable. The CTS policy says that CTS can only be paid into the council tax account. The Council’s decision to pay the CTS into the council tax account is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
10. Ms X says the Council should have named her on the council tax bill as a person liable to pay council tax. This, however, would not have made any difference to the current situation. This is because the Council can only give a refund if the council tax account is in credit and only if Ms X’s ex-partner gave consent. Ms X’s response to my draft decision suggests he is unlikely to give consent. However, Ms X could contact him to ask if the account is in credit and whether he would authorise a refund.
11. There is no part of the policy which says Ms X is entitled to a direct refund of the CTS. She would only be entitled to a refund if the account was in credit and her ex-partner gave consent. The amount of the refund would be the amount that the account was in credit by. It would not necessarily be the amount of the CTS award.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman