Summary: A woman complained that the Council delayed unreasonably in reviewing her entitlement to council tax reduction which meant she now faces a large demand for unpaid council tax. But we do not have reason to investigate this matter because there is insufficient sign of fault by the Council.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mrs B provided with her complaint and her comments in response to a draft version of this decision. In addition I took account of the Council’s complaint correspondence with Mrs B.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mrs B first applied for CTR more than six years ago. The Council calculated Mrs B’s entitlement to CTR based on her earnings at that time, and it continued to do so until it carried out a review earlier this year.
5. The Council then found that Mrs B’s earnings had increased over the previous six years and her son was also now working. As a result, it recalculated her CTR entitlement and sent her revised council tax demands for the past six tax years. This meant Mrs B was now liable to pay several thousand pounds in council tax.
6. But I do not see we have grounds to start an investigation of Mrs B’s complaint.
7. Councils must have a CTR scheme, but each council has considerable discretion about the terms of its own scheme. This means we are unlikely to find fault with a council if it has dealt with a CTR application claim in line with its CTR scheme.
8. The Council’s scheme is clear in placing the onus on the applicant to inform it about any relevant changes in circumstances that may affect their entitlement to CTR. The Council also set out Mrs B’s responsibility in this respect when it first wrote to her to confirm her entitlement six years ago. As a result I do not see we could fault the Council for relying on this provision in rejecting Mrs B’s complaint.
9. Further, the CTR scheme does not appear to mention any obligation on the Council to carry out periodic reviews of applicants’ entitlement. Given the Council’s discretion regarding this matter, I am not convinced we would be in a position to fault it for not necessarily carrying out regular pro-active reviews, even if there may be benefits to it and to applicants from doing so.
10. In any case I note that the Council did contact Mrs B in late 2017 asking for more information about her household circumstances, but she did not reply.
11. It is evident that the council tax and CTR issues in Mrs B’s case have been complicated and confusing for her, and that the Council has issued many letters to her this year containing multiple pages of information.
12. But the Council was obliged to send new entitlement decisions, council tax bills and payment demands covering six tax years as a result of the various changes in Mrs B’s circumstances which came to light this year. I also consider it has provided appropriate explanations of its actions in response to Mrs B’s concerns.
13. In addition, I consider there was an onus on Mrs B to seek further advice from the Council or an advice agency if she was unclear about the Council’s letters or the terms of its CTR scheme at any time.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council had delayed unreasonably in reviewing her entitlement to council tax reduction. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council to justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman