Summary: The Council was at fault for delays in recalculating the complainant’s entitlement to Council Tax Reduction, after he corrected an error in his financial information. However, the substantive matter is now resolved, and the Ombudsman considers the Council’s apology to be a sufficient remedy for the injustice caused by the delays.

The complaint

1. The complainant, to whom I will refer as Mr K, says the Council delayed recalculating his entitlement to Council Tax Reduction (CTR), after he corrected an error in his financial information. The Council then backdated his revised Council Tax bill, requiring him to make payments he could not afford. Mr K also says the Council failed to respond to his complaint.

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’. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr K’s correspondence with the Council, his Council Tax bills, and the Council’s CTR calculations for the relevant period.
5. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. On 15 April 2019, Mr K applied for CTR. The Council considered and approved the application the same day.
7. On 16 April, Mr K contacted the Council. He explained he had made an error on his application form, recording his savings as £10, when it should have in fact read ‘£10,000’.
8. On 10 August, the Council recalculated and reduced Mr K’s entitlement to CTR. It sent him a revised bill on 12 August, requiring him to make four payments of £77-78 each. It also asked Mr K for further information about his finances. Mr K visited the Council offices on 23 August to provide this.
9. After chasing the Council without response, Mr K complained to the Ombudsman on 15 October. He said he could not afford the payments the Council now required. We confirmed Mr K had not made a formal complaint to the Council, meaning we could not yet investigate, and referred the matter back to the Council on 11 December.
10. Before this, on 3 December, the Council provided Mr K with another revised Council Tax bill. It had recalculated his entitlement to CTR again, going back to April, and concluded he had now overpaid his Council Tax by £117.
11. On 23 December, the Council provided a complaint response to Mr K. It acknowledged the delays in assessing the financial information he had provided, and apologised. The Council said it could refund Mr K’s Council Tax overpayment if he wished; but noted he had said he had just taken employment, meaning it was likely it would need to recalculate his ongoing CTR entitlement again.

Back to top

Analysis

12. The Council quickly processed Mr K’s initial application for CTR, but unfortunately he had provided the wrong figures. It then took the Council four months to process the corrected figures and provide a revised Council Tax bill, leaving Mr K with instalments which were higher than they would otherwise have been, and more than Mr K says he could afford.
13. There was then a further delay of nearly four months before the Council processed the additional information Mr K provided, and issued a second revised Council Tax bill.
14. These delays amount to fault. The fault caused Mr K an injustice, first because he received a bill he struggled to pay, and second because he was left in a position of uncertainty while waiting for a further response from the Council.
15. However, the Council has acknowledged it was at fault, and apologised to Mr K. And on the substantive point, with the second revised bill, the financial aspect of Mr K’s complaint appears to be resolved. His bill was (at that point) in credit, and the Council confirmed this could be refunded if Mr K wished.
16. For this reason, I am satisfied there is no further action for the Council to take to remedy the injustice to Mr K, and I make no recommendations.
17. I note Mr K also complains the Council failed to respond to his complaint.
18. From the evidence available to me, it does not appear Mr K made a formal complaint to the Council (as opposed to his attempts to chase the Council for a revised tax bill). However, the Council accepted the matter as a formal complaint when contacted by the Ombudsman, and provided a response (upholding it) on 23 December, less than two weeks later. I am therefore satisfied the Council did respond to Mr K’s complaint, and in good time.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice, but which the Council has already remedied.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman