Summary: Mrs B complained the Council told her she was entitled to council tax support (CTS), but later told her she was not, resulting in a large overpayment. There was fault by the Council. It delayed reviewing Mrs B’s CTS entitlement after it had received a notification her circumstances had changed, from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Because of the fault, Mrs B suffered distress and worry, and it has put a strain on her finances. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mrs B, and provide us with evidence of the actions it says it has already taken to reduce delays.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains the Council told her she was entitled to council tax support (CTS), but told her a year later she was not, and that she would need to repay the CTS overpayments. She also says this is not the first time this has happened to her.
2. Mrs B says the Council’s actions have put a strain on her finances, impacted her mental health, and caused worry to her.
3. Mrs B would like the Council to apologise and write off the overpayment debt.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support or reduction.
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have investigated matters in this case from March 2023 to April 2024. I have referenced matters outside of this period for context.
9. I have not investigated whether the Council correctly applied its Council Tax Reduction Scheme and if its calculations of Mrs B’s entitlement were correct. This is because this matter has already been decided by the Valuation Tribunal. As outlined in paragraph 5, we cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter.
10. However, when the Valuation Tribunal decided Mrs B’s appeal, it said any issues arising from the administration of the Council was not a matter within the Tribunal’s remit. As such, I have investigated the time it took the Council to notify Mrs B she was no longer entitled to CTS, as this did not form part of the Tribunal’s consideration or decision of Mrs B’s appeal, and is an administration matter.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Mrs B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

13. Council tax reduction (CTR, also known as council tax support) is a discount, not a benefit. It reduces the amount of council tax a person has to pay. Although the Council says it administers its CTR scheme as a benefit.
14. If a council gives someone too much CTR it can reduce the CTR and increase how much council tax the person owes. We call these changes ‘CTR reversals’. Sometimes a council creates reversals because it has miscalculated the CTR. It might have ignored the information it had or used information it should not have used.
15. If the council’s CTR Scheme says how it deals with challenges to reversals (sometimes called ‘overpayments’) a claimant can appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. If the scheme does not say how the council will deal with CTR reversals, the claimant cannot appeal.
16. Councils can decide to reduce someone’s council tax and should have a policy explaining when this happens. (S13A(1)(C) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as amended) If somebody is struggling financially because of a decision about wrongly paid council tax reduction, they can apply for a discretionary reduction. Appeals about those decisions are to the Valuation Tribunal.

Back to top

What happened

17. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not include everything that has happened in this case.
18. In February 2023, the Council awarded Mrs B CTS based on her Universal Credit award of no earnings.
19. In March 2023, Mrs B’s circumstances changed as her husband started to work. Mrs B did not tell the Council about this.
20. In mid-April 2023, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) notified the Council about Mrs B’s change in circumstances.
21. In late February 2024, the Council reassessed Mrs B’s CTS entitlement. It told her it had overpaid CTS and from 20 March 2023 onwards, she was not entitled to CTS. It told her it would be recovering the overpayment from her, and it had added the amount to her council tax account for her to pay.
22. In mid-March 2024, Mrs B complained to the Council. She told it that it was unfair of the Council to expect her to pay a large sum in council tax after it told her she was entitled to CTS for over 12 months.
23. In late March 2024, the Council responded to Mrs B’s complaint. It told her:
• CTS awards can be reviewed and amended by the Council when there are changes to household income;
• previous correspondence the Council had sent to Mrs B advised she must report any changes in her circumstances, as failure to do so may result in overpayments;
• it apologised for the unacceptable time taken by the Council to action the change in circumstances notification from the DWP. It told Mrs B there had been a period of increased demand and limited resources available.
24. In early April 2024, Mrs B sent an email to the Council and told it she understood she was no longer entitled to CTS, but the issue was that the Council told her this a year after her entitlement ended, leaving her with a large sum to pay.
25. In mid-April 2024, the Council says Mrs B spoke with the Council over the telephone. It says both Mrs B and the Council agreed a payment of £70 each month was an affordable plan to clear the overpayment debt. The Council sent Mrs B a letter to confirm this payment arrangement.
26. The next day, the Council responded to Mrs B’s email. It told her although the Council had delayed actioning the change of circumstances notification from the DWP, it considers it was reasonable for Mrs B to be aware any changes in income would affect her entitlement. It told Mrs B the CTS notifications the Council had sent to her state she should inform it about any changes. Mrs B asked the Council for a review of its decision.
27. In late April 2024, the Council sent its review decision to Mrs B. It maintained its view that although it delayed reviewing Mrs B’s CTS entitlement, the overpayment was recoverable. It told Mrs B this is because she would have been aware changes in income affect entitlement, and she failed to contact the Council to inform it of this, or to query the CTS notifications showing the incorrect details.
28. Mrs B appealed the Council’s decision to the Valuation Tribunal and it heard the appeal in October 2024. The Tribunal decided the Council’s decision was correct and Mrs B was not entitled to CTS with effect from 20 March 2023.

Back to top

Analysis

29. The Council has acknowledged, and it is clear from the documentation, there has been a significant delay in this case. The DWP notified the Council in mid-April 2023 Mrs B’s circumstances had changed as her husband had started to work in March 2023. The Council reviewed and actioned this notification in late February 2024, roughly ten months later. This was fault, which caused distress and worry to Mrs B, and put a strain on her finances. The Council’s delay meant the overpayment amount continued to accrue until it reviewed Mrs B’s CTS entitlement and told her she needed to repay over £1700. Had the Council actioned the notification from DWP when it first received it in April 2023, Mrs B would not have a large sum to repay.
30. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me the delay in actioning the notification from DWP and reviewing Mrs B’s CTS entitlement was due to increased workload and backlog issues. But it says Mrs B would have known to notify the Council of a change in income, as this is stated on the CTS entitlement notifications it sent to her. Mrs B told the Valuation Tribunal it was difficult to understand paperwork from the Council. But Mrs B had a duty to tell the Council of any changes that may affect her entitlement, and she could have contacted the Council to ask about this when her circumstances changed, or to query paperwork she did not understand. But while I recognise Mrs B did not do this, this does not change the fact the Council delayed actioning the notification from DWP. The Council acknowledged and apologised to Mrs B for this delay in its complaint response.
31. The Council set up a payment plan with Mrs B so she could repay the overpayment. The payment plan is set out as 23 monthly payments, which began in May 2024. The plan was set up following a telephone discussion between Mrs B and the Council, in which the Council says both parties agreed £70 per month was affordable. But the Council told me the payment plan is now in arrears as Mrs B had missed payments for some months. If Mrs B is unable to pay the agreed monthly amount, she should inform the Council of this. We would then expect the Council to consider if the monthly payment amount is affordable for Mrs B and amend the plan if appropriate.
32. Mrs B told us she would like the Council to write off the overpayment amount she owes it. Mrs B has appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and it agreed she had been overpaid CTS, and the overpayment is payable to the Council. As this is a matter the Valuation Tribunal has already decided, we cannot recommend the Council write off the overpayment amount owed to it for the reasons outlined in paragraph 5.
33. As part of my enquiries, I asked the Council what action it has taken to reduce delays and manage increased demand. In response, it told me it has already:
• Sought external support to deal with increased demand and the growing number of notifications from the DWP.
• Taken action to recruit permanent processing officers, offering further long-term stability.
• Had task and finish groups review the Council’s working procedures, with the aim of reducing its processing times.
• Proposed and consulted on a new Council Tax Reduction Scheme, which will reduce administrative tasks, the handling of multiple changes notified by the DWP, and the number of CTS notifications and bills sent to service users.
34. I therefore have not made service improvement recommendations. However, I have asked the Council to send us evidence to show it has already taken the above actions. I also have not asked the Council to apologise to Mrs B, as it has already given her an apology within its complaint response which is sufficient and partially remedies the injustice caused to her.
35. Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us. This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, or it might be more of a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgment of the distress or difficulties they have been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider.
36. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a Council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the Council had not occurred.

Back to top

Action

37. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mrs B by the fault I have identified, within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will pay Mrs B £100. This is to remedy the worry and distress caused to her by the Council’s delay.
38. Within three months, the Council will also provide us with evidence to show it has taken the actions to reduce delays, as outlined in paragraph 33.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

40. I uphold Mrs B’s complaint and find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman