Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to complaints about council tax and service charges. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about the way the Council responded to her complaints. She complains the Council combined two separate complaints and, as fault was found for both, should have awarded two amounts of compensation. The Council awarded £50; Ms X wants an apology and more compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complainant correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Ms X applied for council tax support (CTS) in March 2023 and applied for backdating to September. The Council awarded CTS from April but overlooked the backdating.
5. In June Ms X claimed housing benefit to help with service charges. Later in June the Council said that housing benefit cannot pay service charges for leaseholders. In November the Council said Ms X would need to contact the Pension Service about help with service charges. Ms X says she has suffered a financial loss due to the delay in telling her to contact the Pension Service.
6. While the Council was dealing with the service charge claim it realised it had not dealt with the backdating request. It backdated the CTS to January and explained the maximum period of backdating is three months. It told Ms X she could appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if she disagreed with the backdating decision. The Valuation Tribunal told the Council it has not received an appeal from Ms X.
7. In May Ms X sent the Council an email which was labelled ‘complaint’. The Council treated it as a query. The Council addressed Ms X’s points but did not register it as a complaint.
8. Ms X complained about the backdating issue and the service charge issue. She made two separate complaints which the Council merged. The Council addressed both issues and the issue of the May complaint/query. It apologised for the delay in dealing with the backdating and accepted its communications could have been better at times; it awarded £50 for Ms X’s time and trouble. The Council explained why it had not treated the May email as a complaint.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. There was a delay by the Council in backdating the CTS but it was backdated for the maximum period and the Council notified Ms X of her appeal rights. The Council also apologised. I appreciate this delay may have been frustrating but it does not need an investigation as full backdating was awarded and Ms X had a credit with the council tax.
10. The Council could have signposted Ms X to the Pension Service in June. However, Ms X told me she contacted the Pension Service and was awarded help with her service charges for 2023. As Ms X received help with her service charge for 2023 any delay by the Council did not cause an injustice requiring an investigation.
11. The Council could have communicated better at times and it is arguable it should have treated the May email as a complaint. However, it did address the issues, despite some delay, and subsequently registered a complaint. I acknowledge the complaints process did not go smoothly but there is not enough injustice flowing from this to require an investigation. The Council apologised and offered £50 and there is nothing to suggest a degree of injustice requiring an investigation or additional compensation.
12. Further, as Ms X was complaining about similar and slightly linked issues, I would not criticise the Council for combining the complaints and it could have awarded more compensation if it decided it was necessary. It decided £50 was sufficient and for the reasons I have explained there is not enough injustice for us to intervene.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman