Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council incorrectly assessing his application for Council Tax Support. This is mainly because Mr X could reasonably have used his right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr X states that the Council:
• Unlawfully took account of disability-related benefits in assessing Mr X’s application for Council Tax Support;
• Denied Mr X a fair appeals process against the Council’s decision on his Council Tax Support application; and
• Mishandled Mr X’s personal data.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended).
4. The Valuation Tribunal deals with appeals against decisions on council tax liability and council tax support and reduction.
5. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X believes that the Council wrongly included disability-related benefits in the assessment of his application for Council Tax Support resulting in the level of support being reduced. The Council told Mr X that he had the right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal against the Council’s decision. The law expressly provides this route for challenging such decisions and we normally expect people to use it.
10. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal if he believed that the Council’s decision on his Council Tax Support application was wrong.
11. Mr X also considered applying to the Council for a discretionary reduction in his Council Tax. The Council told Mr X on 15 January 2025 it would review whether to give a discretionary reduction if Mr X submitted details of his household income and expenditure. Mr X would then have the right to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal if he disagreed with the Council’s decision on whether to award a discretionary reduction.
12. I have considered the other elements of Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s appeal process, but these are peripheral to the main point of the complaint which is about the Council’s decision on Mr X’s Council Tax Support application. It would be disproportionate to investigate these peripheral points when we will not investigate the main point.
13. It is more appropriate for the Information Commissioner’s Office to consider the Council’s alleged mishandling of Mr X’s personal data.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal Service regarding his Council Tax Support. Mr X can apply to the Council for a discretionary reduction. The point about data handling is more appropriate for the Information Commissioner than for the Ombudsman. It would be disproportionate to pursue other matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman