Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council wasted the complainant’s time by saying he would qualify for council tax reduction. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice. In addition, 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 wasted his time by telling him he would qualify for council tax reduction (CTR). He also complains about how the Council has treated him. He wants compensation.

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, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 reduction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the complaints Mr X sent to the Council and to the Ombudsman. I considered the Council’s responses. I found out that the Council no longer has the recordings of the calls in which Mr X says he was misadvised. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council tax reduction

6. CTR is a means-tested benefit which helps people on a low income pay their council tax. Not everyone on a low income will qualify. The calculation which determines entitlement to CTR does not take expenditure into account.

What happened

7. In May 2019 Mr X applied for CTR to help him pay his monthly council tax of £150. He says that, during many calls, the Council told him he would qualify. He recalls being told that, due to changes in the legislation, he would get full or almost full council tax exemption for 2019/20. However, after spending time submitting the claim, and visiting the office to present proof of income, the Council told him, in May, he did not qualify because his income is too high.
8. Mr X disputed the way the Council had calculated his wife’s income. He also disagreed with the Council’s failure to consider his expenditure and his health. He said he had been told he would qualify for CTR.
9. In response to his complaint the Council listened to the calls and said that officers did not advise him he would qualify for CTR. Instead officers said he needed to claim for a definitive answer but that, given his wife’s income, it was unlikely he would qualify. The Council did a reassessment of the claim, using different income for his wife, but Mr X still did not qualify. The Council told Mr X he could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he disagreed with the way the Council had calculated the claim. It also explained that, in assessing entitlement to CTR, there is no consideration of expenditure. The Council invited Mr X to ask for a copy of the calls and it apologised for a delayed response to some of his complaints. Mr X did not ask for a copy of the calls. The calls are no longer available because they have been recorded-over by other calls. The Council has limited space to retain recordings.
10. Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council’s response. He maintains he was misadvised about entitlement to CTR. He has had to pay full council tax despite being unemployed and the Council has refused to negotiate a lower bill. He told the Council he wanted to pay £30 a month until he got a new job. He says officers have not returned calls and that complaint responses have been late. He says the Council has ignored the stress and impact on his health. He says senior officers either failed to return calls or cut calls short. Mr X asked the Council for compensation of between £300 to £750. He says it is criminal offence for a council not to keep call recordings for six years.

Assessment

11. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I cannot listen to the recordings but they were listened to as part of the complaints process and there is no reason for me to doubt the Council’s report of what was said. Mr X could have asked for a copy of the calls so he could check them. However, it is unlikely officers would say someone would definitely get benefit because this cannot be known until a claim is made. In addition, we do investigate allegations of crime. If Mr X thinks the Council has committed a criminal offence he would need to contact the police or get legal advice.
12. I have no reason to doubt what Mr X says but, as he was under financial stress it is possible he may have misinterpreted what the officers said, especially as he is not used to claiming benefits. Mr X says he was told that changes in legislation meant he would be exempt during 2019/20. However, there were no legislation changes so, on balance, it seems more likely than not that Mr X misunderstood what he has was told.
13. In addition, even if Mr X was told he would qualify for CTR, this does not represent a degree injustice which requires an investigation or compensation. I appreciate Mr X has spent time dealing with the claim but everyone has to spend time claiming benefits. And, Mr X chose to continue to pursue the claim even after he knew the Council had decided, in May, that he does not qualify. Mr X could submit a claim if his financial circumstances have changed. The Council would then assess the new claim.
14. If Mr X thought the Council had mis-calculated the claim, or had wrongly ignored his expenditure, then he could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. The tribunal would have considered if the Council had correctly assessed the claim. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider CTR disputes. Mr X says he could not risk appealing to the tribunal because the tribunal might have increased his council tax band. However, if Mr X had appealed against a CTR decision the tribunal would not have considered his banding.
15. Mr X complains that the Council failed to return calls and was slow responding to his complaints and emails. However, the complaint responses, and other emails, show the Council provided detailed responses and it apologised for a late reply. I appreciate Mr X feels he has been treated badly but I have not seen anything to suggest the Council’s response was so poor that an investigation is needed. In addition, while Mr X wanted senior officers, including the Chief Executive, to speak to him, it would not be expected for senior officers to become personally involved in CTR claims. And, council tax is a tax, and it is not possible for people to negotiate a lower bill.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice. In addition, Mr X could have used his appeal rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman