Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council calculates 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 Mr X, complains that the Council has incorrectly calculated his council tax support (CTS) since 2013. He says the CTS calculations are wrong because the Council has not updated the applicable amount since 2013.

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. I considered the CTS policy and CTS decision letters. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council tax support

6. Before 2013 people who needed help to pay their council tax applied for council tax benefit (CTB). CTB was calculated in the same way as housing benefit (HB). Both CTB and HB were calculated on rules set by central government. These national rules included an ‘applicable amount’ – this was the amount the government said people needed to live on.
7. The government abolished CTB in 2013. It introduced a local scheme whereby each council sets a council tax support scheme (CTS). For working age people, councils are free to set their own CTS rules and set the applicable amount.
8. Sheffield Council explains the CTS appliable amount in schedule 3 of its CTS policy.

What happened

9. Mr X receives HB and CTS. He complained to the Council that it has not updated the CTS applicable amount since 2013. He says the Council has failed to apply the applicable amount stated by government and reflected in the applicable amount for HB. Mr X has provided a copy of the rear of a housing benefit and CTS decision letter; it says “your applicable amount is the amount the government says you need to live on…”.
10. In response to the complaint, the Council explained that since 2013 it has been responsible for setting the applicable amount for CTS for working age people. It also explained that, since 2013, it has been responsible for setting and running the CTS scheme. It agreed it has not increased the applicable amount since 2013 but explained that this was due to a decrease in funding it receives from the government.
11. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s response. He says he has been underpaid CTS since 2013.
12. The Council told me it will review the wording on the back of the decision letters in relation to the applicable amount.

Assessment

13. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
14. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council has been responsible for setting the applicable amount, and the CTS rules, since 2013. The applicable rates for HB have nothing to do with the CTS rates. The amount the Council has awarded to Mr X, for the CTS applicable amount, reflects the amount stated in the CTS policy. It is correct that the rear of the decision letter wrongly links both HB and CTS to the applicable amount as defined by central government. But, the CTS decisions are based on the policy, not on the information on the back of the letter. If Mr X disagrees then he could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. In addition, the Council will review the wording on the letters.
15. It is correct that the Council has not increased the CTS applicable amount so that it matches the HB appliable amount. But, since 2013, the Council is responsible for the CTS scheme and it is for the Council, not the Ombudsman, to decide how to manage the scheme and the rates. If Mr X thinks the Council should increase the CTS applicable amount he will need to lobby his local councillors.
16. Mr X could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal if he did not think the Council had awarded CTS in line with the policy. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider appeals about CTS and the Council notified Mr X of his appeal rights. However, the tribunal cannot tell the Council it must increase the applicable amount or tell it to change the CTS policy.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman