Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a delay by the Council in notifying the complainant that his council tax reduction had ended. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and because the impact is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council should not have stopped his council tax reduction (CTR) until June because that is when it notified him of the decision. He also complains the Council gave him the wrong address to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. Mr X wants the Council to reinstate his CTR from March to June and waive the £138 that was added to his council tax.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on CTR.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. On 19 April the Department for Work and Pensions told the Council that Mr X’s Universal Credit (UC) had increased from 14 March. The Council reassessed Mr X’s CTR in June and decided he was not entitled to CTR from March because his income had increased. The Council sent Mr X a decision on 16 June ending the CTR from March and it issued a new bill on 21 June which increased Mr X’s council tax from March.
7. Mr X has paid the council tax but complained the CTR should continue until June. In response the Council apologised for the delay in reassessing the claim. It explained he is not entitled to CTR from March because that is when his UC increased. It said Mr X had been claiming CTR for some time so should be aware of the impact of an increase in income. The Council provided a postal address so Mr X could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. Mr X says the address was wrong and he found out when he tried to visit the building.
8. Mr X appealed to the Valuation Tribunal. In his appeal he says the CTR should continue until June. The Valuation Tribunal has not yet made a decision.
9. I cannot investigate whether the CTR should continue until June. The law says we cannot investigate any matter that has been appealed to the tribunal. Mr X has appealed to the tribunal so I cannot investigate this part of the complaint. In addition, the Council gave Mr X the correct address to contact the tribunal by post. It is not an address people can visit which is what Mr X tried to do.
10. The Council delayed reassessing the CTR but the period of the delay is not significant enough to warrant an investigation. The Council did not receive the information about the UC increase until 19 April. It is then reasonable to allow the Council about four weeks to process it. This then leaves a Council delay of about four weeks which is not long enough to require an investigation. I appreciate Mr X received a larger council tax bill but that would have happened even without the delay.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not start an investigation because Mr X appealed to the tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman