Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s council tax support scheme. 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 Ms X, complains about the council tax support scheme (CTS). She says the Council has discriminated against her as a disabled person and the Council changes the figures to suit itself.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
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 support. The tribunal cannot deal with appeals about council tax support policies.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council reviewed its CTS scheme in 2018 and introduced changes from April 2019. The changes meant Ms X’s entitlement to CTS reduced. In 2019 the Council reviewed Ms X’s claim and increased the award. It also explained that she gets disability premiums which increase her entitlement and it said that some of her disability benefits are disregarded. The Council explained the changes to the CTS scheme and how it affects Ms X. It invited Ms X to apply for additional support from the hardship fund. The Council says Ms X has not applied to the hardship fund for extra support.
7. In November 2019 the Council told Ms X that she could not appeal to it, or to the Valuation Tribunal, if she disagreed with the CTS policy but she could appeal if she disagreed with how her CTS had been calculated.
8. Ms X disagrees with the changes and the impact they have had on her CTS. She says the Council changes the figures to suit itself and she has been discriminated against as a disabled person.
9. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons.
10. Ms X could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal if she did not think the Council had assessed her CTS claim correctly. It is reasonable to expect her to have appealed because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider disputes about the way CTS has been calculated. Ms X says the Council never told her about the Valuation Tribunal. But, the Council referred to it in its letter in November 2019 and all the letters refer to the Council’s website which gives information about the tribunal.
11. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council changed the scheme after carrying out a review. The new rules led to a decrease in Ms X’s CTS but there are rules which take disabilities into account. In addition, the Council invited Ms X to apply for extra support from the hardship fund. I appreciate Ms X disagrees with the current CTS scheme because she gets less benefit than she did under the old rules. But it is for the Council, not us, to decide the terms of its CTS policy. If Ms X thinks the CTS scheme should be changed then she would need to lobby her councillors for a change to the policy. We cannot change the CTS policy or tell the Council it must award more CTS to Ms X.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate this complaint because Ms X could have appealed to the tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman