Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the complainant’s former employment with the Council. This is because the law prevents us from investigating employment related complaints. We will not investigate the complaint about council tax and council tax reduction because the Council has proposed a fair remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains about her former employment with the Council. She also complains the Council ended her council tax reduction (CTR) and disagrees she cannot be held jointly liable for council tax with her son.

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 the Council has provided a fair remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X has been in dispute with the Council since her employment with the Council ended. She also complains she was not put on furlough during the pandemic. I cannot investigate any issue relating to Ms X’s employment with the Council because the law prevents us from investigating any personnel issue.
6. Ms X moved in with her son. The Council made Ms X jointly liable for the council tax with her son. The Council awarded CTR to Ms X from August 2020.
7. In March 2022 the Council realised it should not have made Ms X liable for the council tax because she is not a joint owner or joint tenant and she is not living with her son as a spouse or partner. The Council decided Ms X should not have received £1022 in CTR because she is not liable for council tax. The Council proposes to write off the £1022 but it cannot confirm this until it has assessed Ms X’s son’s claim for CTR. Her son has recently submitted evidence to the Council so it can process the claim. There is an overlap between Ms X’s claim and her son’s claim and the Council may adjust the £1022 after it has assessed her son’s claim.
8. Ms X says the Council is treating her badly because of the employment dispute and because she made a claim against the Council following an accident. Ms X says she should be entitled to CTR because she contributes to the household expenses with her son.
9. I will not investigate the CTR complaint because the Council does not plan to recover the overpayment from Ms X and the account is on hold until the Council has processed her son’s CTR claim. Once the adjustments have been made for her son’s claim the Council does not intend to seek repayment from Ms X regarding the CTR that should not have been awarded to her. The Council will confirm this to Ms X once her son’s CTR and council tax have been finalised.
10. Only joint tenants, joint owners or people living together as partners or spouses can be held jointly liable for council tax and people can only claim CTR if they are liable for council tax. It is not clear why the Council initially thought Ms X was liable for council tax but as the Council is proposing to write off the erroneous CTR payment this does not need an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because we cannot investigate employment complaints and the Council is proposing to write off the CTR that Ms X should not have received.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman