Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council wrongly issuing a council tax bill. This is because the remaining injustice in this case is not sufficient to warrant our involvement and it is unlikely we can add to what the Council has already said.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council acted on behalf of incorrect information supplied by a third party which resulted in it wrongly issuing his vulnerable, elderly mother, Mrs Y, with a council tax bill. This caused alarm and distress and Mr X has spent time dealing with the Council about this matter. Mr X wants compensation for this and for the Council to demonstrate it has changed its working practices to avoid this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background

5. The Council received information from another body that Mrs Y had changed her address which caused its systems to automatically suspend Mrs Y’s claim for council tax reduction. The Council explained to Mr Y that to verify the information it received, its normal practice would have been to write to Mrs Y to check. It explains however, that in this instance, due to an error, this letter was not sent out. As Mrs Y’s claim remained suspended, a council tax bill was wrongly generated.
6. The Council has apologised to Mr Y and Mrs X for the distress caused by its error. It has explained its processes to Mr Y and why these would normally mean that an erroneous bill would not be generated.

Back to top

My assessment

7. While I recognize Mr X remains dissatisfied with the Council’s response to his complaint and the distress caused to Mrs Y, from our perspective, the remaining injustice is not sufficient to warrant our further involvement or to recommend any financial remedy. The Council has explained what took place and why normally this would be prevented and I do not consider that any investigation by us can add to this or change the outcome of the complaint.
8. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the remaining injustice is not sufficient to warrant our involvement and it is unlikely we can add to what the Council has said or change the outcome of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman