Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s investigation of their circumstances when they made a claim for council tax support. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s investigation of their circumstances when they made a claim for council tax support.

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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the comments of the complainants and the Council and the complainants commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. The complainants made a claim for council tax support. The Council queried their ownership of a caravan as this would affect their entitlement. The Council says that it told the complainants of its concern prior to the interview but the complainants did not provide any further evidence which would affect the Council’s initial view that this was ownership of property.
5. As a result, they were asked to visit the Council for an interview under caution. Mr X says that the interviewer was rude and threatening and the Council’s investigation was unnecessary.
6. The Council says that Mr X provided evidence in the interview that the caravan was a chattel and not property and would not therefore affect their claim. This was accepted by the Council and the claim was awarded.
7. I appreciate that the interview would have been worrying for the complainants but the Council had explained the issue causing the need for the interview prior to the meeting and Mr X could have avoided the need for the interview if further evidence had been supplied as requested. The Council is required to interview claimants under caution as this means any evidence given can be used later should prosecution be pursued. This is not therefore fault by the Council.
8. I do not consider that investigation of this complaint by the Ombudsman would achieve anything further than that concluded by the Council. The Council was entitled to interview the complainants and the matter was resolved during the interview.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I do not intend to investigate this complaint because it is unlikely the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman