Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not process a benefit claim made in 2019. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice. In addition, the complainant could have used his appeal rights.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council did not process a claim he made in 2019 for council tax reduction (CTR). He wants the Council to award CTR from August 2019.

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, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(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 or reduction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. In October 2019 the Council received a change of circumstances form from Mr X. A few days later it asked him to complete an on-line benefit claim form. The Council did not receive an application from Mr X.
7. In May 2020 Mr X submitted another change of circumstances form. The Council again asked him to complete a claim form. The Council says Mr X did not submit a claim. In August Mr X queried whether he needed to complete a claim form and the Council said he did. The Council gave him the same information in September.
8. Mr X submitted a benefit claim in November. The Council wrote to him to ask for some information. Mr X did not supply the information so the Council closed the claim in January. The Council did not tell him it had closed the claim. The Council will now reinstate the November application and send another letter asking for the information it had previously asked for in November.
9. Mr X had asked the Council to backdate his claim to September 2019. The Council sent a decision in December saying it would not backdate the claim. It explained it can only backdate CTR for six months and for the six months prior to November Mr X had not shown good cause for delaying his claim. The Council said Mr X could appeal to the Council and then to the Valuation Tribunal if he disagreed with the backdating decision.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons. In relation to the complaint that the Council did not process a claim submitted in 2019, there is insufficient evidence of fault. This is because Mr X did not submit a claim until November 2020 and the Council had repeatedly asked him to submit a form. And, if Mr X disagreed with the decision not to backdate, he could have used his appeal rights. It is reasonable to expect him to appeal because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider benefit disputes.
11. The Council failed to issue a decision letter in January which was an error. However, this has not caused an injustice which requires an investigation. This is because the Council has reopened the claim and will again ask Mr X to provide the information it requested in November. If Mr X provides all the information the Council will be able to decide if he qualifies for CTR.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice, and because there were appeal rights Mr X could have used.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman