Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has refused to give the complainant a council tax refund. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council increased his council tax support (CTS) in August which means he is owed a refund. Mr X wants a £117 refund and compensation.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the council tax bills and benefit decision letters. I considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council sent Mr X a council tax bill in May 2021. It showed the Council had awarded CTS of £939 and discretionary support of £117. The total support was £1056. The remaining council tax was £117 which Mr X paid. The CTS decision letter said the Council had awarded CTS of £18.01 a week from 1 April. The award letter for the discretionary payment said the award would not be increased unless Mr X sought debt advice.
5. In August the Council sent a letter which said it had reviewed Mr X’s benefit entitlement and made no changes. The letter said Mr X would continue to get CTS of £18.01 a week and the total council support for the year is £1056.
6. Mr X read this letter to mean that his CTS had increased from £939 to £1056 and he had overpaid by £117. Mr X asked the Council for a refund of £117.
7. The Council explained Mr X is not due a refund because the £1056 referred to in the August letter is the combined support from the CTS and the discretionary support. It said it could understand why he thought he had overpaid and it apologised for any frustration.
8. The Council sent a bill in October confirming Mr X had been awarded CTS of £939, discretionary support of £117, and had a nil balance because he had paid £117.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient of fault by the Council and because Mr X is not due a refund. The letters sent in May clearly explained that Mr X had been awarded two types of support which equalled £1056 with a weekly CTS award of £18.01. I agree the August letter did not specifically refer to the discretionary support but it did say there had not been any changes. It also confirmed the on-going weekly CTS of £18.01 and total support of £1056. If, as Mr X alleges, his CTS had increased, then the letter would not have referred to there being no change to the entitlement and the weekly amount would have increased from £18.01.
10. Mr X says an officer told him he had overpaid. However, even if an officer did make this comment, that does not mean Mr X is due a refund or that an investigation is needed. And, while I think the August letter could have been clearer, the other documentation is sufficient to show Mr X is not owed a refund.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman