Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about council tax and council tax support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council sent council tax demands for the wrong amount. He says he has been discriminated against and the events affected his health. He wants an apology and for the Council to lift the ban on him contacting the Council.

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 complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X receives council tax support (CTS). His entitlement from April should have been £13.55 a week but the Council decided to over-ride one of its rules to ensure Mr X received the maximum amount of £14.26. Unfortunately, because the Council was acting outside the normal rules, it had difficulty updating the system and inaccurate bills were issued. The Council kept in touch with Mr X to explain that it was trying to resolve the problem and he would not be issued with any reminders. The Council stressed it was trying to resolve the issues and urged him not to worry.
5. The Council resolved the problem in late May. It sent an email to Mr X to apologise, to explain what had happened, and to say the issue had been resolved and he would be sent a new bill.
6. Mr X complained in August. As part of his complaint he said he had been advised he might be entitled to compensation and the Council had discriminated against him. The Council again explained what had happened, issued another apology and said there was no evidence of discrimination. The Council declined to pay compensation because Mr X has not suffered a financial loss.
7. The Council told me Mr X has not been banned from contacting the Council. Instead, he has a single point of contact. That person passes on messages to the relevant departments and call backs are arranged if needed. The Council told me Mr X has a single point of contact due to his high degree of contact with officers.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X received some inaccurate bills but this was an inadvertent by-product of the Council having difficulty over-riding the system to maximise his CTS outside the usual rules. I do not regard this as fault. If the Council had not tried to maximise his CTS then there may not have been any problems – but Mr X would have had to pay more council tax.
9. The Council kept in touch with Mr X, reassured him he would not receive any reminders, and apologised. The end result was that Mr X received more CTS than would have been the case if the Council had not overridden the system. I see nothing to suggest discrimination and Mr X has not been banned from contacting the Council. I also see nothing to support Mr X’s allegation that the Council has shown no contrition or empathy; the Council was trying to help him and his apologised several times.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We 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