Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled the complainant’s council tax reduction. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant could have used his appeal rights.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision not to backdate his council tax reduction (CTR). He says he should get CTR from February 2021.

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 about CTR.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes letters about Mr X’s CTR and the complaint correspondence. I considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied for CTR in February 2021. The Council awarded CTR from February to June. The CTR was based on Mr X’s Universal Credit (UC) claim. In July the Council was told by the Department for Work & Pensions that there had been a change in Mr X’s UC. The change meant Mr X was no longer entitled to CTR. The Council told Mr X it had ended the claim from 4 June and invited him to reapply if his circumstances changed. The Council told Mr X he could appeal to the tribunal if he disagreed with the decision. The end of the CTR meant the Council issued a new council tax bill with higher payments.
7. Mr X reapplied for CTR in September. The Council awarded CTR from 12 July. It told Mr X he was not entitled to CTR from 4 June. The Council issued a new council bill, with lower payments, to incorporate the CTR award.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council awarded CTR from February but had to end the claim from June due to changes in Mr X’s UC. It notified Mr X of the decision, gave appeal rights, and invited him to reapply. It had to increase Mr X’s council tax payments because the CTR had ended. The Council then awarded and backdated Mr X’s new application. There is nothing to suggest we need to start an investigation.
9. I also will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal if he thought any of the CTR decisions were wrong. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed because the tribunal is the appropriate body to consider disputes about CTR awards. The tribunal is free to use and the Council notified Mr X of his appeal rights.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because Mr X could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman